news details |
|
|
| Court acquits Asgar Ali the then ADC Kupwara | | Vigilance fails to prove charges of disproportionate assets | | Early Times Reporter
Jammu | Apr 25
Special Judge Anti Corruption Jammu Mr. Kartar Singh has acquitted the then Additional DC Kupwara Asgar Ali from the charges in a much publicized disproportionate assets to the tune of over Rs 87.30 lakhs in which the Vigilance Organization conducted secret enquiry and registered case in the year 1996. The VO has failed to discharge initial burden to prove the basic ingredients of the alleged offence against the accused, Special Judge observed and acquitted the official from the charges framed against him and his brother.
According to the Vigilance case Asgar Ali, Additional Deputy Commissioner Kupwara, had raised assets in the shape of movable and immovable at Jammu and other places. The substance was found while conducted a secret enquiry into the matter and thereafter a case u/s 5(2) PC 2006 was registered and investigation ensued. The family background of the accused and service record the accused is originally a resident of Kishtwar, his father a Lt Peer Nizam-ud-Din was clerk in education dept who left his service and joined congress party and was elected MLA from Kishtwar. Asgar Ali was appointed as Probationary Tehsildar in November 1977. The father of the accused was land-lord and Sajada Nashin of a famous Ziarat which was his main and substantial source of income.
In the 100 page judgment Mr. Kartar Singh, after hearing CPO for the Vigilance Organization and M/S PN Raina and Abhinav Sharma Advocates appearing for the accused persons, observed that accused Syed Asgar Ali is not in possession of any immovable property nor he has purchased Benami either in name of his wife or accused No 2 his brother Farooq Ahmed. He was found in possession of some moveable assets in the shape of cash in his different bank accounts and money invested in FDRs either in his name of in the names of his minor children for which he had the source to invest and when calculated such amount comes only to Rs 11, 73, 000, some FDRs were newly purchased and some were the renewal of the old FDRs but the prosecution has failed to prove as to how many FDRs were newly purchased and how many were renewal of the FDRs and this has made the task of the Court difficult to do the proper calculation and come to some definite conclusion. However, it stands proved that income of accused Syed Asgar Ali from his known source of income was more than the assets which were found in his possession at the time of raid, so out of total cost of disproportionate assets Rs 87, 30, 975 accused has to account for only Rs 11, 73, 000 which he had invested during the check period in the shape of FDRs and cash in the bank accounts. His total income from known source during the check period has been found to be Rs 20, 08, 528. In this way accused Asgar Ali cannot be said to have assets disproportionate to his known source of income.
Court in the acquittal judgment observed that the case has not been properly investigated by the Investigating officer and the prosecution has failed to discharge the initial burden to prove the basic ingredients of the alleged offence against the accused. Court raised a question had the investigating Officer verified the family assets of the accused; there was every-likelihood of the benefit to be given to the accused during investigation under the provisions of section 169 Cr PC. Accused Farooq Ahmed cannot be said to have conspired with accused Asgar Ali in accumulating the assets because he had his independent sources of income with which he purchased the immovable properties as mentioned in the Vigilance Organization charge-sheet. The Vigilance has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt as there is not even an iota incriminating evidence against them and the material facts of the case have been suppressed during investigation. Had they been shown the light of the day, this charge-sheet against the accused would have never been filed in the Court? They are acquitted of the charges framed against them. JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
