news details |
|
|
| Court acquits ALC from corruption charges | | |
JAMMU, JULY 03- Special Judge Anticorruption, Jammu, Mr. Kartar Singh, today acquitted ND Sharma, the then Assistant Labour Commissioner, Kishtwar, facing trial since last 11 years in corruption case, as the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt.
According to the vigilance case in 1984, the complainant Choudhary Amar Nath forest lessee had taken a contract in forest area from the forest department. One labourer, Kalu r/o Patnazi Bazwanjwa, Tehsil Kishtwar, died while working in the compartment. The wife of the deceased filed a compensation suit against the complainant in the Court of Assistant Labour Commissioner Kishtwar where Mr. ND Sharma was Assistant Labour Commissioner.
In the complaint it has been alleged that the then Assistant Labour Commissioner in September, 1992 had passed the award of Rs 64070 as compensation in favor of widow of deceased Kalu. The complainant deposited the amount of award and then filed an appeal against the said award in the High Court and got the stay order. The complainant also informed the Assistant Labour Commissioner about the stay granted by the High Court and handed over copy of the stay order to him at his residence at Jammu, a telegram was also sent to the Assistant Labour Commissioner Kishtwar. The accused Assistant Labour Commissioner demanded and accepted Rs 2000 as illegal gratification from the complainant at his house with the promise he would not disburse the amount of award to the awardee till decision on the appeal filed in the High Court. However, the accused in spite of taking bribe from complainant disbursed the compensation money to the awardee by sheer abuse of his official position. A complaint was filed with the VOJ; and after completion of the investigation VOJ presented the challan in the Court of Special Judge Anticorruption Jammu.
Special Judge Anticorruption in his 20- page judgment observed that there is considerable force in the argument of Advocate PN Raina, appearing for the accused, that FIR has been lodged under suspicious circumstances with considerable delay as such the prosecution story cannot be believed.
Special Judge Mr. Kartar Singh further observed that if this statement of the complainant is believed, it is of no help to the prosecution because it has been proved from the statement of the complainant that he came to know about this fact 2-4 days after December 14, 1992. Moreover this fact is further fortified from the application which was moved before the accused on April 27, 1994 by the complainant for the refund of the awarded amount. There is, therefore, considerable delay in lodging the FIR which has not been explained by the prosecution. Court therefore has drawn an adverse inference against the truthfulness and veracity of the prosecution story and held that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case and as such acquitted the accused of the charges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
