news details |
|
|
| Court acquits Resident Manager SIDCO, other accused in cheating case | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Aug 17: Special Judge Anti-corruption Jammu YP Bourney acquitted Mohammed Elyas Kraipak, Resident Manager, J&K SIDCO, New Delhi and Mohammed Iqbal Naqash, son of R Naqash of 395-Jawahar Nagar Srinagar who were booked by SVO under sections 420, 120-B RPC r/w section 5(2) of P C Act, 2006 SVT, as prosecution miserably failed.
According to SVO case that after receipt of information about the fraudulent drawal of house rent in excess by the accused Mohammed Elyas Kraipak while being posted as Resident Manager, J&K SIDCO, New Delhi, a preliminary verification was initiated which led to the registration of an FIR vide No 11/2007 and setting into motion of detailed investigations which culminated into the presentation of instant charge-sheet in the due course. As the charge-sheet goes, accused-1entered into a criminal conspiracy with the other accused, who happens to be his brother-in-law for making fraudulent withdrawals of house rent to the detriment of the public exchequer. During the course of investigation, it came to fore that accused-1 came to be posted as Resident Officer J&K SIDCO office New Delhi in the year 1996 Vide Order No. IDC/96/151 dated 21st Nov. 1996 and was promoted as Resident Manager Vide Order No. IDC/CO/04/64 dated 19th of February 2004. After his transfer to New Delhi in the year 1996, accused-1 started putting up at Pocket A-9/36-A, Kalkaji Extension which had already been taken on lease by J&K SIDCO for providing residential accommodation to the then Resident Manager, Sajjad Qadri since the post of Sr. Resident Manager was reduced to the rank of deputy Manager/Resident Officer till held by him. In January 1998, accused-1 shifted from the said residential accommodation to building No. 1 Begum Pura (Malvia Nagar) New Delhi after taking on rent a flat from his brother-in-law (accused no. 2). On 11.04.2001, accused-1 purchased a flat having no. 40/220 Chitranjan Park, New Delhi from one Madhu Gangwani as per agreement to sell and power of attorney dated 11.04.2001 and shifted to that flat in the same month. Both the accused persons entered into criminal conspiracy to defraud the State and prepared a fake and fictitious agreement to sell dated 19.04.2001 whereby the flat purchased by the accused-1 was shown to have been sold to the other accused for an amount of Rs 3,75,000/- and executed a rent deed on the very next day, whereby, accused-1 took on rent the same flat from accused-2 without seeking any permission for its purchase or sale and subsequent hiring from the competent authority or even informing the head office before the execution of the lease deed in question. On the basis of these fictitious documents, Accused-1 started drawing the rent of the flat owned by himself w. e. f. April, 2001 till November 2006 when under law he was entitled to draw 30% of the HRA only admissible to him under SRO 76 Dated 30.03.1992 read with SRO No. 52 dated 05th of February 1998 and thus caused a loss of Rs 3,57,651/- to the State exchequer. It was further revealed during the investigation that cheque Nos. mentioned in the agreement to sell to show the payment/receipt of the consideration amount were actually issued for different amounts and purposes. The accused applied and obtained water connection in the year 2003 in his own name and the electric connection also existed in his own name. It was also revealed that accused got en-cashed the cheques for the rent through the employees of his office and pocketed the amounts thereof when, under the lease agreement, he had to issue payees' account cheques to the accused-2.
Special Judge Anticorruption Jammu YP Bourney after hearing both the sides observed that prosecution has failed miserably to prove that the act of the accused in withdrawing the rent of his own premises in the garb of being taken on lease from the other accused and the latter having consciously facilitated these withdrawals does not meet the requirements of the offence as defined under section 5(1)(d) of P. C. Act since nobody from the corporation has come forward to state that it was a calculated loss to the corporation and undue enrichment of the accused. The charge sheet is therefore dismissed and the accused persons are acquitted of the charges leveled against them. --JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
