news details |
|
|
| It takes 20 years to settle Rs 2000 graft | | | Early Times Reporter
Jammu | Apr 5
Facing the allegations of accepting illegal gratification of Rs 2000, a government employee has finally obtained relief from the High Court after two decades of trial.
Chief Justice KS Radhakrishnan dismissed the appeal filed by Vigilance Organization against the acquittal judgment of Special Judge Anticorruption who acquitted the accused Makhan Lal Mishri then section officer of electric dept and other, after two decades.
According to the case against the accused persons a written complaint was submitted by Ghulam Nabi Khan before the VO Kashmir, the complaint was that on October 24, 1987 when the complainant came to know that electric supply to his father's Bandsaw had been disconnected, he contacted the Makhan Lal Misri section officer who demanded Rs 2000/- as bribe for restoration of electric connection.
On this complaint the Supt VOK registered a case and laid a trap. According to the prosecution that the trap was successfully made and after investigation of the case sanction was also obtained. Another accused Mohammad Abdul Rehman was alleged to have accepted illegal gratification Rs 1500/-, however, no valid sanction was obtain to prosecute him.
Chief Justice KS Radhakrishnan after hearing Additional Advocate General BS Salathia appearing for the Vigilance Organization appearing for the accused respondents in detail judgment observed that Trial Court has found some infirmity in the sanction to prosecute the accused, though Court do not concur with the reasoning on that but agree the prosecution had not properly established the ingredients for successful prosecutions of the offence u/s 5(2) PC Act. There is material contradiction between the evidence of complainant and other witnesses. It may also be noted that has been a considerable delay in the investigation of the case and its trial. The incident is stated to have occurred in the year 1987. Accused has already undergone the agony of the Trial and also attended the criminal proceedings all these years. In the facts and circumstances of the case no reason to take a different view than that the of the Trial Court, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
