| HC issues notice to SVC, SVO, DGP | | Alleged acceptance of bribe by then Thanamandi SDPO | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Nov 16: Justice A M Magrey has issued notice to State Vigilance Commission, State Vigilance Organanisation, DGP, then Thannamandi SDPO Raj Kumar, now posted as DSP, CID, at Kathua, headconstable Roshan Lal, now posted in Samba district and Planger-A sarpanch Mir Baz, directing them to file reply to the allegations of corruption levelled in the petition.
The notice was issued in a petition filed by Irfan Khan of Planger, Thanamandi, seeking a direction the SVO to reinvestigate the matter or to transfer the complaint and investigation to Crime Branch, Jammu.
The petitioner's counsel submitted he was the victim of the police, torture, extortion and extraction of illegal gratification. He had filed a complaint before the special judge, anti-corruption, Jammu, under section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with sections 161, 166 of RPC against DSP Raj Kumar and headconstable Roshan Lal. The Court on September 27, 2012 forwarded the complaint to SSP, VOJ, for necessary action under law. That thereafter till February 21, 2013, nothing was heard in the matter and nothing was done by the vigilance officers despite the fact that it is settled law that once a court directs under section 156 (3) of CrPC, the officer is bound to register an FIR and investigate but the VO referred the matter to police for inquiry which was totally illegal and against the spirit of the law laid down by the Supreme Court. So much so when the special judge anti-corruption, Jammu, directed the SSP VOJ to make an inquiry, the said officer should not have done so as the respondents were serving in police and the inquiry got vitiated there.
The petitioner then filed a supplementary complaint against sarpanch Mir Baz and produced on record a CD to substantiate the allegations and to depict the role of accused No 6 who was trying to win over the complainant and his witnesses and who had acted as a conduit in the alleged transfer of bribe to the official respondents.
The special judge anti-corruption vide his September 11, 2013 order sent the supplementary complaint to the SSP VO, Jammu. The CDs and the transcript were sent by the complainant by post to the SSP Vigilance. That the conversation and the transcripts would explicitly prove that the sarpanch was also involved in the alleged gamut of corruption, demand and acceptance of bribe besides DSP Raj Kumar and Roshan Lal. That till April 2014, the SVO did neither completed the preliminary inquiry nor the petitioner was disclosed anything despite the fact that he made a number of visits and also filed RTI applications to respondent No 2.
That subsequently, the petitioner yet again filed a petition/ complaint under section 8 (D) the provisions of the J&K Vigilance Commission Act 2011 requesting the Commission to direct the State Vigilance Organisation to register a formal FIR in the complaint and enquire and supervise the investigations in his complaint.
The commission on July 22, 2015 heard the petitioner's counsel at length on the point of jurisdiction and issued notice to SSP vigilance, Jammu.
The petitioner's counsel submitted that the commission had not performed its statutory duty for which it was constituted as it had dismissed the complaint merely on the count that the VO and the DIG (Rajouri-Poonch) had conducted inquiry and charges are not proved.
The said logic and rationale is unreasonable and alien to the concept of balance of power doctrine, therefore the order ex facie is bad an illegal.
The counsel submitted that the petitioner even cited the judgment of the Constitution Bench of SC in Lalita Kumari's case wherein the Apex Court directed that even if the Preliminary Inquiry goes against the complainant the copy of the same must be provided to the complainant within 7 days, but in the present case the petititioner submitted before the respondent No 3 about the said violation but the impugned order is totally silent on legal as well as factual aspect.
The copy of the preliminary report report till date has not been provided to the petitioner.
On hearing the counsel's submissions, the high court issued notice to the respondents and directed listing of the case as and when the service was complete. |
|
