STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. DHARAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.11.2003 passed by the Special Judge (Forest), Shimla in Corruption Case No. 4-S/7 of 2000, whereby the respondents, who were charged with and tried for offences, under sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and 13 (1 (c) & (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, were acquitted.

(2.) CASE of the prosecution, which led to the trial of the respondents is that Dharam Singh, respondent No.1, was working as Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Chanog under Mashobra Block, District Shimla, Tarun Nehru, respondent No.2, was working as Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikari (Secretary) and Suresh Kumar, respondent No.3 was working as Junior Engineer in the office of Block Development Officer, Mashobra District Shimla. Money was withdrawn for executing construction work of two rooms of Government Primary School, Pawaboo falling in the area of Gram Panchayat, Chanog, by Dharam Singh, respondent No.1. A sum of Rs. 50,000/- was sanctioned for the construction of two rooms. A sum of Rs. 40,000/- was released to respondent No.1 and a sum of Rs. 54,052/- was shown to have been spent, but on the spot no work was found to have been done except laying of foundation of two rooms and having stacked 6000 bricks and some sand.

(3.) DURING investigation, PW-21 ASI Gurdeep Singh visited the spot on 27.8.1996. He also found irregularities and discrepancies in the construction of two rooms. He got the site photographed vide photographs Ex.PW-7/D-1 to Ex.PW- 7/D-10. He also took into possession the documents, namely, bills, muster rolls etc. (Ex.PW-5/D-1 and Ex.PW-4/D-39). He also took into possession applications moved by respondent No.1 for release of money alongwith receipts, Ex.PW-1/A-1, Ex.PW-1/A-9, Ex.PW-1/A-4, Ex.PW-1/B-1, Ex.PW-1/B-9 and Ex.PW-1/B-4. He also took into possession the inquiry report of Block Development Officer, Mashobra Ex.PW-26/A. It also transpired during the course of investigation that respondent No.3, being Junior Engineer, had wrongly verified the payments made to respondent No.1 in collusion with respondents No.1 and 2 and the respondents were party to the criminal conspiracy in the matter of preparing wrong record, forging the muster rolls, bills and misappropriated the Government money.