Early Times Report
Jammu, Sept 25: In an appeal filed against the judgment of CBI court whereby CBI Court convicted 10 accused including income tax official, Justice MK Hanjura after hearing Sr. Adv Sunil Sethi with Adv Veenu Gupta appearing for the appeal, set-aside the judgment and acquitted the appellant namely Sudershan Kumar s/o Dhanpat Lower Division Clerk in CIT Jammu, Kishore Sharma s/o Diwan Chand, R S Mehta s/o Sh. Roop Singh, Sohan Singh s/o Sh. Ranjit Singh, Rajesh Kumar Sharma s/o Sansar Chand Sharma, Tilak Raj Sharma s/o Onkar Chand Sharma, Raj Kumar Dogra s/o Sanjhi Ram Dogra, Amit Pal Singh s/o Suraj Pal Singh, Shekhar Dhar s/o M K Dhar and Tulsi Thakur s/o Shiv Lal Thakur.
According to the CBI case on the basis of reliable information received by the CBI FIR No: RC0042003/A003 was registered on 23.6.2003 against accused Sudershan Kumar (A1), LDC, Office of Commissioner Income Tax Jammu, Jia Lal (A4) Peon, Rajesh Kumar (A6) alias Raju Chowkidar of the Income Tax Office, Jammu, Rajinder Singh Mehta (A3) and Sh. Kishore Sharma s/o Dewan Singh(A2) and others not named for the offences punishable under section 467, 468, 471,409, 419, r/w Section 120 B RPC & 5(2) r/w 5(1)(c) & (d) of J & K PC Act 2006 alleging there in that the accused Sudershan Kumar, Jia Lal and Rajesh Kumar had entered into criminal conspiracy with accused Rajinder Singh Mehta, Kishore Sharma and others at Jammu during the year 2002-03 and misappropriated the refund amount which was due to various income Tax Assesses by opening fictitious bank accounts on the basis of forged documents. Justice MK Hanjura after hearing both the sides observed that the specimen handwritings/signatures of the accused/appellants in this case are alleged to have been obtained in the presence of civilians, who as is repeated here were the employees of banks/Insurance Companies. The specimen handwriting/ signatures can be obtained by the Court when some proceedings are pending before it.
For these reasons, the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court appears to be based upon insufficient and unreliable evidence. The impugned judgment of the trial Court, therefore, deserves to be set aside. The same is, accordingly, set aside and the appeals are accepted. The appellants/accused are acquitted of the charges for which they were tried by the trial Court. |
