STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. S.K.GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State has appealed against the judgment, dated 11th November, 2003, of learned Special Judge, whereby respondent Budh Ram, who was Pradhan of the Panchayat, at the time of commission of the alleged offence, and respondent S.K. Gupta, who was working as Land Acquisition Collector, at that time, have been acquitted of offences, under Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 477-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2.) According to the prosecution, sometime in the year 1995, an amount of Rs. 11,07,056/- had been deposited with respondent S.K. Gupta, who was then working as Land Acquisition Collector, for Sirmour and Solan Districts, on account of acquisition of land of private persons, by the Public Works Department. The money was required to be disbursed by respondent S.K. Gupta to the land owners, whose lands had been acquired. From 18th May, 1995 to 20th May, 1995, respondent S.K. Gupta, who had his office at Nahan, the Headquarters of Sirmour District, allegedly was at Paonta Sahib, where he had his residence in a rented private accommodation There he started disbursing the compensation money to the land owners. On 18th May, 1995, he disbursed money to the father of PW-1 Surjit Singh and also to a brother of the father of said PW-1 Surjit Singh. Both of them were disbursed Rs. 18,300/-, each.

(3.) PW-1 Surjit Singh felt that the money paid to his father and father's brother was less than the money, which was actually due, on account of compensation assessed, as per award of the Land Acquisition Collector. So, he lodged report Ex. PW-1/A with the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Nahan. This complaint was made on 20th May, 1995. It was stated in the complaint that respondent S.K. Gupta was still in the process of disbursing money at his residence at Paonta Sahib and he was being assisted by the other respondent, namely Budh Ram, who was the Pradhdn of the Panchayat and that both of them, in connivance with each other, had been paying less amount of money to the claimants, than due and were misappropriating the rest of it.