State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Inderjeet Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

1. State has appealed against the judgment dated 10th March, 2006 of learned Special Judge, Kullu, whereby respondents Inderjeet Singh and others, who were charged with offences, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, have been acquitted.

2. Respondent L.V. Upadhaya was posted as Assistant Engineer at Koksar in Lauhal & Spiti District, in the year 1995. Respondent Inderjeet Singh was working as Junior Engineer under him, during that year. Other two respondents, namely Om Parkash and Balbir Singh were also working under him, as Supervisors. Respondent Om Parkash was a regular Supervisor, while respondent Balbir Singh was daily-waged Supervisor.

3. In the months of August and September, there were unprecedented rains in Lauhal valley of Lauhal and Spiti District. Koksar is in Lauhal valley. As a result of those rains, a link road, known as Mooling-Burdul-Sipting, which is about five kilometers in length, was badly damaged. There were land slides and slips on the road. Also, some retaining walls had been washed away.

Repair and restoration of the road was immediately required, because residents of the villages, connected by that link road, had to transport their potato crop to the main National Highway, leading to Manali.

4. Exploiting this natural calamity, as an opportunity to make money, the respondents hatched a criminal conspiracy. Object of the conspiracy was to prepare false record, in the form of Muster Rolls and Measurement Books, regarding the work of restoration of that link road. They got issued seven Muster Rolls, Ex. PW-9/D, Ex. PW-9/E, Ex. PW-9/F, Ex. PW-9/G, Ex. PW-9/H, Ex. PW-9/J and Ex. PW-9/L, from the Executive Engineer, Udeypur and made bogus entries in those Muster Rolls, regarding employment of labour. A rum of `1,79,097/- was shown to have been spent, by way of disbursement of labour charges, in those Muster rolls.

Bogus entries were also made in Measurement Books, corresponding to the entries in the aforesaid Muster Rolls. It was also shown in the Muster Rolls that the retaining walls (Kutcha) and the crate walls had been constructed to restore the road, in addition to removal of slips and debris.

5. An anonymous complaint, Ex. PW-20/A, was received by Anti Corruption Zone, Kullu. Preliminary enquiry was conducted by PW-20 Shri Amar Nath, who submitted report Ex. PW-20/B. As per this report, entries in the Measurement Books Ex. PW-13/D and Ex. PW-13/E, as also in the aforesaid Muster Rolls, were bogus and the work of restoration of the aforesaid link road had not been carried out by the Department of Public Works, but by Shramdaan of residents of three villages, namely Mooling, Burgul and Ghosal.

6. On the basis of the aforesaid preliminary report, Ex. PW-20/B, concerned Police Station of Anti Corruption Zone was approached, vide writing Ex. PW-20/D, to register a case against the respondents. Case was formally registered vide FIR Ex. PW-20/E.

7. During the course of investigation, Muster Rolls and Measurement Books were seized. Specimen and admitted writings/signatures of the respondents were also procured. Purported signatures and writings of the respondents, on the Measurement Books and the Muster Rolls, were got compared with their standard writings and signatures. Handwriting Expert opined that the purported writings and signatures of the respondents matched with their standard writings and signatures.

8. On completion of investigation, Disciplinary Authorities of the respondents were approached to accord sanction to prosecute them. On receipt of such sanction, report, under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was drawn and submitted to the learned Special Judge, alongwith relevant papers.

9. When the respondents appeared before the learned Special Judge, they were supplied with the copies of report, under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the documents submitted therewith. Thereafter, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel and the record was gone through by the learned Special Judge and it was felt that a prima facie case, under the aforesaid provisions of the Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act, was made out against the respondents. They were charged accordingly. They pleaded not guilty to the charge. Therefore, they were put on trial.

10. Prosecution examined 20 witnesses, besides proving the aforesaid Measurement Books and Muster Rolls. Respondents, in their examination, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, pleaded that they had been falsely implicated by PW-1 Shri Dharam Pal, PW-2 Shri Bir Chand and PW-8 Shri Bir Singh, who wanted that the work of restoration of the aforesaid link road be got executed through them, by engaging them as contractors. They pleaded that they did not oblige the aforesaid witnesses and got the work executed departmentally and so they (the witnesses) got them falsely implicated in this case.

11. Learned trial Court concluded that the case of the prosecution did not stand established, beyond reasonable doubt. Learned trial Court held that the best evidence available to the prosecution had not been produced and, therefore, an adverse inference was required to be drawn against the prosecution for withholding such evidence.

12. We have heard learned Assistant Advocate General as also learned counsel representing the respondents and gone through the entire evidence.

13. As a matter of fact, out of seven Muster rolls, only five pertain to the work of restoration of the link road, in question. These Muster Rolls are Ex. PW-9/F, Ex. PW-9/G, Ex. PW-9/H, Ex. PW-9/J and Ex. PW-9/L. Total amount shown to have been disbursed against these five Muster Rolls comes to `1,30,138/-.

14. Prosecution relies upon the testimony of PW-1 Shri Dharam Pal, a former Pradhan of the Panchayat, PW-2 Shri Bir Chand again a Pradhan of the Panchayat and PW-8 Shri Bir Singh, in support of its charge that the entries in the Muster Rolls are bogus and that as a matter of fact restoration work of the road, in question, had been carried out with the Shramdaan of the residents of three villages.

15. Undoubtedly, PW-1 Shri Dharam Pall, PW-2 Shri Bir Chand and PW-8 Shri Bir Singh have testified that the work of restoration of the abovesaid link road from Mooling bridge to Mooling village, total length of which is one kilometer, was carried out by Shramdaan of about 50 to 55 residents of three villages, namely Mooling, Ghosal and Burgul, but another witness of the prosecution itself, namely PW-3 Shri Dorje Ram, testified that the work had been executed by the Department and he supplied labour to the Department. He stated that the labourers, numbering 50-55, were from Nepal and they worked on the site for a number of days. The witness, of course, was declared hostile by the prosecution, but that by itself is not a ground, strong enough, to disbelieve his testimony and to believe the testimony of the three other witnesses.

This is particularly so, when PW-1 Shri Dharam Pal very categorically stated that a meeting of the residents of the above-named three villages was called and it was discussed in that meeting that with a view to ensuring the timely export of potato crop from the valley, no delay in the restoration work could be brooked and, therefore, it was resolved to clear the road, without waiting for the Public Works Department to do the job, by Shramdaan, for which each family was to depute one person. He stated that the resolution was reduced into writing, but no such writing has been produced.

Therefore, the prosecution is liable for an adverse inference, to the effect that neither any gathering of the residents of the aforesaid three villages had taken place nor was any resolution for restoration of road by Shramdaan passed and that the restoration work of road was not carried out by the residents of the said three villages.

16. Another reason for not believing the testimony of the abovenamed three witnesses, namely PW-1 Shri Dharam Pal, PW-2 Shri Bir Chand and PW-8 Shri Bir Singh, is that Executive Engineer, PW-13 Shri L.S. Verma, who issued the Muster Rolls to respondent L.V. Upadhaya, Assistant Engineer, testified that he had done random verification of the work, referred to in the Muster Rolls, to the extent of 10 per cent of the total work, and found no irregularity. Statement of the witness proves that work had been carried out on the spot. Furthermore, the total length of the road, which required restoration work, was about five kilometers, from 0.03 km to 4.995 km. Abovenamed three witnesses PW-1 Shri Dharam Pal, PW- 2 Shri Bir Chand and PW-8 Shri Bir Singh speak of restoration work of one kilometer portion of the aforesaid link road.

17. Moreover, PW-1 Shri Dharam Pal, PW-2 Shri Bir Chand and PW-8 Shri Bir Singh have stated that no material was required for the restoration of the road and that only slips and debris etc. were there on the road, which were cleared by the residents of three villages, by Shramdaan. Investigating Officer of the case, namely PW-20 Shri Amar Nath admitted that Kutcha Dangas had been raised and in addition to that crate walls were also provided. The witness stated that this was in addition to the clearing of slips and debris. The witness also stated that the entire road had been restored. As already noticed, the total length of the road was about five kilometers.

18. Persons, who are named as labourers in the Muster Rolls, were not associated in the investigation of the case nor was any effort made to find them out. Either those persons should have been examined to get it proved that they had not been engaged or definite evidence should have been led that there were no persons by such names.

19. Those persons have not been examined and also there is no evidence that the persons, named in the Muster Rolls, are fake. As a result of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the judgment of acquittal, which has been assailed in the present appeal, does not call for interference.

20. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.