news details |
|
|
| HC refuses to quash charges against evaluator in alleged Bank scam | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Sept 28: In a petition filed by Nitin Kumar Tayal who is a approved property evaluator of certain Banks including SBI, seeking quashment the order of trial Court dated 15.11.2014 whereby charges under section120-B read with section 419/420/467/468/471 RPC have been framed against him.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Gupta after hearing Adv Rajneesh Oswal for the petitioner whereas Adv Monika Kohli for the CBI observed that law is clear that these contradiction and exaggeration cannot be considered at the stage of framing of charges. It is not the case of petitioner that there is legal bar created in any law for framing of charges against him. In this way, there is enough material to frame the charge against the petitioner.
While dismissing the petition, Justice Sanjay Kumar Gupta observed that there is enough material that accused-petitioner made gross overvaluation in respect of nonexistent properties in connivance with Mir brothers; these Mir brothers got fraudulently evaluation of building constructed on the land of one Krishan Singh and shown the value of land as Rs.1.84 crores and that of building as Rs.15.88 lacs with connivance of petitioner Nitin Tayal.
It was also found that Nitin Tayal with connivance of Mir brothers made mis-representation thereby showing the land in the vicinity of National Highway (1-A), Moti Mahal Restaurant, J.P Guest House and Military Check Post, whereas it was 1 V KM far from National Highway. It has also come in investigation that land measuring 10 kanal each on the name of Major Singh and Thoru Ram under kh.no 1474 min situated at Chowadi, Jammu were not belonging to them; it has come during investigation that accused /petitioner showed evaluation of land as commercial cum residential with double storey building under kharsa no. 836 measuring 18 k 8 m situated at village Tringla Ramban, on the name of Mohd Iqbal Mir and Parvez Mir, as 1.84 crores of land and that of building as 15.88 lacs, but there was no building in existence and evaluation of land was done at exorbitant rate. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
