STATE OF H.P. Vs. RAMESH KUMAR KHANEJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the judgment of the court of learned Special Judge, Solan, whereby the respondents have been acquitted of charges under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 120-B IPC and Section 13(1) ((THELAW)) and (d) punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act..

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that respondent No.2 Ramesh Kumar Khaneja is a contractor who was awarded a contract for laying of pipes. He was required to lay 1693 meters pipe in different depth ranging between 20 cm to one meter. It was alleged that the pipe was not laid within the required depth and the payment was obtained by respondent No.2 wrongly by forging the documents in connivance with Saudagar Chand the then S.D.O. respondent No.1 (now dead) and the then J.E. now respondent No.3. A sum of Rs.17980/- was released to respondent No.2 in connivance with two other accused persons. A case was registered and challan was filed before the learned Special Judge who tried the respondents under the above mentioned sections, resulting in their acquittal.

(3.) THE submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General for the State were that there are no allegations that 1693 meters pipe was not laid as required under the contract but rather it was laid in excessive in all 2540 meters and the remaining pipe was laid by the Department. It was submitted that the depth was measured at several places with the help of jhabbal and it was found that when the jhabbal struck with the pipe by sound only the length was measured and it was concluded that the pipe had not been laid up to required depth of one meter. It was not disputed by learned Additional Advocate General during the course of arguments that this striking of jhabal can be even with the stone which may give a similar sound. Thus it was submitted on behalf of the State that though this crude method of measurement of depth was adopted, but the statement of the witness who took measurement at different places clearly shows that the pipe was not laid at a depth of one meter below the surface as required by the agreement and the findings to the contrary of learned Special Judge are liable to be reversed.