State of Himachal Pradesh vs Sukh Ram and Others

Deepak Gupta, J.—This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 13.09.2005 passed by the Special Judge, Solan, whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 471, 477-A, 466 read with Section 120-B Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that accused Rajesh Kumar is a Forest Contractor and had, on behalf of the private land holders, applied to the State for permission to cut and sell the trees belonging to the private land holders through the H.P. Forest Corporation. According to the prosecution, accused Rajesh Kumar was attorney of the private land holders. As per the policy, the up set price has to be prepared and in the present case, Manager, Shri R.C. Chauhan, prepared the economics and the up set prices for the two lots bearing No. 30/97-98 and 31/97-98. These economics were approved by the Director of the H.P. Forest Corporation. According to the economics originally worked out, the rate of timber was suggested at Rs. 6,000/-per cubic meter and on this basis, the entire economics were worked out.

The case of the prosecution is that accused Sukh Ram, at the relevant time, was posted as Senior Assistant, accused Liaq Ram was posted as Office Manager and Accused Shiv Saran Das Jagethia was posted as Divisional Manager. These three persons entered into a conspiracy with Rajesh Kumar with a view to unduly enrich Rajesh Kumar and to cause loss to the State Government. They changed the rate of timber from Rs. 6,000/-to Rs. 7,000/-with regard to both of the lots and, therefore, caused loss to the Corporation.

As per the policy of the Government, 25% of the amount calculated in accordance with the economics is paid at the time when possession of the land is delivered; 25% is paid after felling and conversion of trees; 25% is paid after converted timber reaches the depot or sale depots and remaining amount is paid after disposal of the timber. This is apparent from the notification dated 15.6.1996, Ex. PC.

With regard to lot No. 30, the original economics is Ex. PA/2 and in this the economics have been worked out by taking the price of timber at Rs. 6,000/-per cubic meter. This is signed by the concerned officer. However, Ex. PA/3 is another calculation with regard to the same lot. In this, the economics have been worked out by taking the rate at Rs. 7,000/-per cubic meter. This document is not signed by the Divisional Manager. Payment of first two installments to Rajesh Kumar was made in accordance with Ex. PA/3.

As far as lot No. 31 is concerned, economics have been exhibited as Ex. PA/8. On page 8 of this document, there are cuttings and the figure ''6,000'' has been changed to ''7,000'' and all other economics have been changed as a consequence thereof. The case of the prosecution is that these changes were made by accused Sukh Ram.

At the outset, it may be stated that there is No. evidence worth mentioned against accused Liaq Ram and Shiv Saran Dass Jagethia and there is No. material on record to show that they had entered into a conspiracy with Sukh Ram or Rajesh Kumar. They, at best, could be said to be negligent, but there is nothing to show that they can be fastened with any criminal liability.

The learned trial Court acquitted the accused holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. Hence, the present appeal.

In order to succeed, the prosecution was required to prove who was the person who made the cuttings in Ex. PA/8 and who was the person who substituted Ex. PA/3 for document Ex. PA/2. Though a handwriting expert had been examined, he has not said a word in respect of these two documents.

In fact, if the statement of accused Sukh Ram, recorded u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure is read, it is apparent that he has admitted the entire case of the prosecution but has clearly stated that neither Ex. PA/3 was prepared by him nor cuttings in Ex. PA/8 were in his hand. Without proving who made the cuttings and changes whereby the words and figures 6,000 were changed to 7,000/-, the prosecution cannot succeed. Learned Deputy Advocate General has failed to point out any evidence to link Sukh Ram or any of the accused with the cuttings or the changes made. This was the most essential point to be proved by the prosecution. They having failed to prove this, the learned trial Court was fully justified in acquitting the accused.

Hence, I find No. merit in the appeal, which is accordingly rejected.