news details |
|
|
| Court acquits former VC JDA in illegal appointments case | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Jan 27 (JNF): In a major set-back to State Vigilance Organization, Special Judge Anticorruption Jammu Puneet Gupta acquitted Mohd Aslam Qureshi former VC JDA , as VOJ failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond shadow of doubt after 12 years of investigation and trial. According to VOJ a FIR NO 19/2003 registered by the P/S VOJ u/s 5(2) Pc Act against Mohd Aslam Qureshi that The Vigilance Organisation (VO) has charged Qureshi with recruiting Ragunath Jhoor son of Jagan Nath as PRO on May 1, 2002 for six months and later getting the appointment approved by the Board of Directors, in violation of government ban on such recruitments. Qureshi had appointed another man, Farid Hussain son of Noor Mahi, as work supervisor on consolidated pay of Rs 4000 per month for six months and regularized his job after getting it approved by the Board of Directors. According to the VO, Qureshi had received one kanal of land at Sidhra from Farid Hussain and registered it in the name of his brother-in-law, Ali Muhammad Khan. The VO further said the accused had received a "gift" of one kanal of land at Sidhra from Abdul Rashid Mubaraki without the approval of higher authorities. In the violation of rules he ordered appointment of one Purshtom Kumar as Switch Board Attendant on consolidated pay Rs 2500 per month and also appointed Kaka Ram as Parokar on the same pay violating the government ban on fresh recruitments.The court after hearing Adv Shah Mohd Choudhary appearing for the accused persons observed that the court has taken up the evidence and decided the charges framed against the accused and the court held that none of the charges stand proved against the accused. Court also observed that some of the statements of witnesses who could through some light on the case in material respect and the statements of other witnesses produced by the VOJ are more or less formal in nature as is evident from the statements of those witnesses. With these observations Court holds that the VOJ failed to prove the charges farmed against the accused beyond shadow of doubt and he is acquitted of the charges leveled against him. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|