LAWS(HPH)-2025-8-28

STATE OF H.P. Vs. PAWAN KUMAR

Decided On August 05, 2025
STATE OF H.P. Appellant
V/S
PAWAN KUMAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment dtd. 22/3/2012, passed by learned Special Judge (Forests), Shimla, H.P. (learned Trial Court), vide which the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of an offence punishable under Sec. 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of an offence punishable under Sec. 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1) (e) of the PC Act. It was asserted that a preliminary inquiry was conducted, and it was found that Pawan Kumar, Senior Assistant, office of Director, Health Services, H.P., constructed a house consisting of six rooms and got his daughter Neetu Sood admitted to Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Medical College, Bangalore. He paid Rs.16,42,000.00 as her fee between 17/8/2000 to 23/5/2001. The accused had an income of Rs.7,97,351.00 between June 1993 and August 2001, and he had spent Rs.8,44,649.00 more than his known source of income. He could not give a satisfactory answer for spending excess money. Photocopies of (Ex.PW6/A to Ex.PW6/D) were seized. An FIR (Ex.PW8/A) was registered. Daulat Ram (PW9) conducted the investigation. He seized a copy of the deposit slip (Ex.PW2/A) vide memo (Ex.PW9/A). He seized the documents (Ex.PW1/A1 to Ex.PW1/A9) related to the admission, undertaking and fee receipt.The statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court.

(3.) Learned Trial Court charged the accused of the commission of an offence punishable under under Sec. 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.