news details |
|
|
| Special Court sets aside order of attachment of property of KAS officer | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Oct 1: Special Judge Anti-corruption Jammu Mohan Singh Parihar set-aside the order of attachment of property of Noor Alam, KAS officer and directed to release the attached property. The facts of the case giving rise to the filing of these appeals are that on 23-9-2019 a case vide FIR no. 21of 2019 offence under Section 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act Samvat 2006 came to be registered at Police Station ACB Jammu against the appellant Noor Alam for possessing huge movable/immovable property disproportionate to his known sources of income. Before registering the above FIR, ACB on the basis of report of joint surprise checks carried out by ACB in the offices of Rural Development Department/RDD in Rajouri, Poonch and Reasi District for the period 2015 to 2017 regarding allegations that the officers/officials of RDD have purchased flex hoardings from blue eyed persons for installations in various districts which has resulted in huge loss to State exchequer, a case vide FIR No. 08/2018 was registered for commission of offence under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) PC Act, Section 120-B RPC at Police Station ACB Jammu against various public servants including Noor Alam and investigation was initiated. During the course of investigation, the residential houses of the accused were searched after obtaining the search warrants from this Court. The house of Noor was also searched and during the search of residential house situated at Bathindi, Jammu various incriminating documents relating to acquisition/possession of huge movable/immovable property were found. Thereafter ACB conducted verification about the possession of disproportionate assets by Noor. The verification revealed that Noor has amassed huge movable/immovable property disproportionate to his known source of income. The Special Judge Anti-corruption Jammu observed that the investigating officer while passing the order of attachment has not given any reasons to believe that the property in question relating to which he was conducting investigation has been acquired by Noor by the commission of offence of criminal misconduct as defined under Section 5(1)(e) of the PC Act and he has also not mentioned any relevant material on the basis of which he came to be conclusion during the course of investigation that the property in question is required to be attached in terms of Section 8-B of the PC Act. The court further came to the conclusion that the order dated 7-5-2021 passed by the designated authority confirming the order of attachment of property is not sustainable under law and thus the appeals of the appellants are allowed. The impugned order is set aside and order of attachment dated 10.02.2021 is revoked and the attached property is order to be released. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
