news details |
|
|
| Justice Aftab Alam is expected to arrive at Srinagar on June 5. | | Court acquits Asstt. Controller, Ors from corruption charges after 25 years | |
JAMMU, JUNE 04:- Special Judge Anticorruption, Jammu, Mr. Kartar Singh today acquitted Mohan Singh, the then Assistant Controller, Jawahar Lal Tickoo, the then Sr. Assistant, Piare Lal Koul, the then Inspector Weights and Measures, Ghulam Nabi, the then cashier and Jai Krishan Pandita the then Manual Assistant of the department, facing trial and investigation from 1982.
After hearing CPO for the State and Advocate ML Thusoo appearing for the accused persons, Mr Kartar Singh observed that Vigilance Organization during preliminary enquiry found that some amount was used for office expenses though it was prohibited. It was further found that account of the composition money was ill-maintained and it has thus been fully established during preliminary enquiry that accused has committed no offence at all and no misappropriation was found against him. In other words the accused was given a clean chit of all the allegations leveled against him. In spite of all this the FIR was registered on June 21, 1984 in which it was stated that during the course of verification of anonymous complaints, it was found that the accused had misappropriated the composition money. What was the basis for the registration of the case has not been explained by the prosecution when the preliminary enquiry has totally exonerated them. In this regard nothing has been brought on the record by the prosecution.
In his 15 page judgment Mr. Kartar Singh further observed that counsel for the accused has submitted that there is delay in lodging the FIR against the accused which has not been explained by the prosecution. This fact can’t be denied that the alleged occurrence took place in the year 1982 and the preliminary enquiry report was submitted on August 4, 1983 on the basis of which the FIR was registered on June 21, 1984. This inordinate delay in registering the case against the accused has not been explained by the prosecution. This preliminary enquiry report was submitted on August 4, 1983 on the basis of which the FIR has been registered. Why it took more than 10 months to register the case makes the prosecution story doubtful. The record further reveals that after registration of the case, the investigation started at snails pace and it culminated in filling the final report in this regard on March 1, 1986.
Special Judge Anticorruption further observed that this long delay firstly in registration of the case and thereafter the delay caused in investigation has not been explained by the prosecution. It is a well settled principle of law that each and every days delay is to be explained by the prosecution and if it is not explained the only reasonable reference can be drawn is that investigation agency took its own time to give shape to the case. These material circumstances cannot be ignored in this case. There may be some whisper in the prosecution evidence against the accused Mohan Singh and accused Jai Kishan though they have not been connected with the commission of the alleged offence but one fail to understand as to why not the other persons have been arrayed as accused in the case. Not even single incriminating word has been brought against them by the prosecution. The accused in this case have suffered for the last 25 years without any fault which can be attributed to them. With these observations, Court acquitted the accused from the charges framed against them as the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
