STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. JAGJIT SINGH PARIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the State is directed against judgment dated 28.5.2009 passed by learned Special Judge (Forest), Shimla in Corruption Case No.50-S/7 of 2003/96 whereby the respondents J.S.Parihar and others have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 5 and 6 of H.P. Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, 1983 and Sections 468, 467, 471, 420 read with Section 120-B IPC.

(2.) The prosecution version which emerges consequent upon the completion of the investigation reveals that during the period 1989-90 certain works were got executed by Sub Division No.V, NJ & D-II Jhakri of which works due to rains of March-April, 1990 were damaged and thereafter, losses were intimated by the then Executive Engineer to the Superintending Engineer. The Superintending Engineer B.S.Kapoor getting suspicion on the amount of damage ordered formation of a committee to inspect the work and find the exact damages to the works so reported. The committee constituted vide Ext.PW26/A-9 for assessing damages comprised of B.S.Kapoor, N.C.Sharma, Assistant Engineer, J.K.Sirkeck, Superintending Engineer, D.R.Gupta, Assistant Engineer and V.L.Gupta. This committee inspected the spot and visited all the sites of which damages had been reported and submitted its report Ext.PW-7/C-1. In its report Ex.PW-7/C-1 the committee categorized the damages under three heads i.e. firstly where damages did occur, secondly where the works were only partially damaged but excess amount of damage had been reported and thirdly where an inspection work having been executed at site was found. The committee on assessment of the above three categories was of the view that damages/loss to the tune of only Rs. 5.14 lacs and not Rs. 53.00 lacs as reported had occurred. This was reported by the committee to the Executive Engineer, NJPC, vide letter Ex.PW-26/A along with details of damages occurred and variations found which are contained in Ext.PW26/A-1. Subsequently vide Ext.PW-26/A the Secretary, HPSEB, constituted another committee of which B.S.Kapoor, Superintending Engineer was member, which rechecked the works and prepared reports Ex.PW-7/A dated 9.7.1990 and Ex.PW-7/B dated 2.8.1990. As per both these reports in all 44 works were inspected on 23rd and 24th May, 1990 and again on 3rd and 4th July, 1990. The inspection of 3rd and 4th July, 1990 was carried out in presence of Geologist and Police.

(3.) A perusal of these reports in general reveals that the committee and the Geologist were of the opinion that wherever the work existed either there was no damage or little damage compared to what had been reported. The Committee and Geologist were of the view that no work had been carried out on the spot. As such, in June, 1990 the DIG Enforcement B.S. Thind on receipt of special audit report marked the case to Rama Nand vide letter Ext.PW27/A-1 and referred the case for registration on the basis of which FIR No.25/90 Ext.PA/2 was registered.