STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. SURAJ PARKASH KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) STATE has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 04.08.2004, rendered by the learned Special Judge (Forests), Shimla in Corruption Case No. 35-S/7 of 2003/94, whereby respondents Suraj Parkash Kapoor, J.S. Parihar, Mohan Singh, Rakesh Gupta, Ranjit Thakur, Pankaj Manchanda, who were charged with and tried for offences, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 218 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 4, 5 & 6 of the H.P. Prevention of Corrupt Practices Act, 1983, have been acquitted.

(2.) CASE of the prosecution, in a nut-shell, is that respondents J.S. Parihar, while working as Executive Engineer, Suraj Parkash Kapoor as Junior Engineer and Mohan Singh, Head Draughtsman, allotted the work for the construction of G.I. Wire Crates work above Power House Road between RD- 3560 to RD-3610, Location Nos. II and III for a total payment of `96275/-. The work was allotted, which was 64.58% above the estimated cost of `58,576/-, as mentioned in the quotation notice. The work has been shown in M.B. No. 330/89. During investigation of case F.I.R. No. 25/90, PW-10 Rama Nand detected certain irregularities in the execution of the work in Nathpa Jhakri area. He requested the authorities to get the matter investigated thoroughly by appointing a technical committee by the H.P. State Electricity Board. Consequently, the technical committee was constituted. The technical committee submitted the report Ex. PW-8/A to the police. Thereafter, a ruka was sent by PW-10 Rama Nand vide Ex. PW-10/A for registration of case. In sequel thereto, F.I.R. Ex. PW-10/B was registered. The matter was investigated thoroughly by the police. Thereafter, after completing all the necessary formalities, challan was put up against the respondents.

(3.) THE Prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined as many as 16 witnesses. Respondents were also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. THEir stand is that of denial simplicitor. However, they have also examined two DWs in order to prove their defence.