STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. NARESH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State challenges the acquittal of the respondents for offences under Sections 120B, 420, 465, 468, 471 IPC and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accused were charged for offences on the complaint instituted by PW16 Sh. Pritam Chand Patial, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Unit, Una. The prosecution case was that first accused Naresh Chand was working as Junior Engineer in H.P. PWD in Mehatpur. Accused No. 2 Kamaljit Singh was working as Work Inspector in the same Section. The work of construction of Jakhera -Morbarroad was tendered by the Executive Engineer, H.P. PWD in May/June, 2000. A portion of the road required cemented work for which accused No. 3 Kewal Krishan had also submitted his tender." The Executive Engineer had accepted the tender and allotted the work to him vide Ext. PW5/A -13 on 24.7.2000. The case then proceeds that first accused Naresh Chand had issued indents Ext. PW5/A -13 for supply of cement to accused No. 3 Kewal Krishan. PW10 Sh. Mohan Lal and PW13 Sh. Vijay Prashar was the officers In -charge of H.P. PWD at Jalran. Both of them had entertained indents Ext. PW5/A -13 and on various dates 1450 bags of cement were issued to the third accused. On 12.10.2000 the third accused had been issued 200 bags of cement by PW10 Sh. Mohan Lal and PW13 Sh. Vijay Prashar. He had taken delivery of 150 bags of cement to the work site. The remaining 50 bags of cement had been disposed of by the third accused to PW12 Sh. Promod Kumar, who was constructing his house at village Behdala. It is on these allegations that prosecution was initiated. The learned trial Court has acquitted the accused primarily for lack of evidence as there was no witness, who had stated anything against the first accused. The Court on the consideration of the evidence holds that the third accused is stated to have carried 50 bags of cement in a tractor which broke down on the way and the goods had been off -loaded. The police seized those goods. The Court also notes that the third accused had deputed his men at various places. The Court then holds that there was no mark of identification on the cement bags. PW9 Sh. Kailash Dev Joshi, Assistant Engineer had stated that Ambuja Cement Works had been supplying identical cement to Government and Private Sector. Mark of identification ISI -1488 PPC with red line at the top for Government supplies was not found on cement bag Ext. P1. Even PW12 Sh. Promod Kumar, who was the star witness, did not utter even a single word about the identification of this cement bag. Apart from PW4 Sh. S.K. Prashar, who had stated that cement identical to cement bag Ext. P1 was not available in the open market, no witness supported his testimony. 5% wastage was allowed to the Registered Builders as per Central PWD Account Code which was admitted by Assistant Engineer, PW9 Sh. Kailash Dev. The prosecution had not sought sanction of the accused under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In these circumstances, the case was dismissed.

(2.) LEARNED Additional Advocate General urges that the findings of the learned trial Court are wrong and public material has been misappropriated by the accused in which eventuality they should and ought to have been convicted for the offences as charged. I cannot accept this submission on the facts of the case as the learned trial Court holds that the cement bags subject matter of the case did not carry any peculiar identifying mark as was the case of the prosecution. Secondly, these cement bags are normally available in the open market. Thirdly, the Court also notices that these cement bags were off -loaded on the way from the tractor of third accused which had broken down. After having gone through the evidence, I do not find any incriminating evidence against the accused. There is, thus, no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the respondents are discharged.