news details |
|
|
| Court discharges forest officials | | | EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, Nov 13: Special Judge Anticorruption Jammu, BL Bhat discharged Ashok Kumar Koul, the then Deputy Manager SFC Dudu, presently Manager Sales SFC Sales Depot Pathankote and Ram Lal then driver SFC presently SFC workshop Jammu at the stage of framing charges as Vigilance has failed to produce the valid sanction for prosecution of the above said accused persons.
According to the Vigilance case Abdul Maijd Malik lodged a written Complaint with the VOJ alleging therein that Nizam-ud-Din Divisional Manager SFC Udhampur had set-up private bee keeping nursery near Sudhmahdev and used to visit the nursery utilizing Government Jeep. It was further alleged that accused had engaged daily wagers for working in the nursery, who were paid from state exchequer being wrongly shown as having been engaged on Government duty at Dudu Basantgarh. A preliminary enquiry conducted to verify the allegation and thereafter registered a case in the year 1994 u/s 5(2) PC Act 2006 r/w section 120-B RPC and started investigation. During the investigation it was established that a Bee keeping nursery at Sudhmahdev was established in the year 1991-92. Allegedly a conspiracy was hatched by the Nizam-ud-Din with accused AK Koul then Deputy Manager SFC Dudu and driver Ram Lal. It is worthwhile to mention here that accused Nizam-ud-Din was at Rotherham England (UK) on August 17,2007 and his name was dropped from the array of the accused.
Special Judge Anticorruption, after hearing CPO for the state and Adv KK Sharma appearing for the accused persons, observed that the material collected by the IO clearly reveals that the deceased Nizam-ud-Din was in a commanding position being the head of the office and he abused his official position for material gain. He established the private Bee keeping nursery for his personal benefit, both the accused Ashok Kumar Koul and Ram Lal are not alleged to be the beneficiaries. Being subordinate to the deceased, they could not be expected to question any impropriety committed by the deceased. Court further observed that the sanction for prosecution of the accused was accorded by the Chairman SFC who was not competent as such the charge for offence u/s 5(2) PC Act cannot be sustained. The relationship with the deceased and accused was that of a master and servant as such they have not alleged to have committed pilferage. Thus mere association with the accused in a fiduciary capacity does not make conspirator with the deceased. There is not even an iota of incriminating material to establish unity of purpose among the deceased and the accused persons to achieve a common objective as such charge u/s 120-B RPC cannot sustain and accused are discharged at the stage of framing charge. JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
