news details |
|
|
| Court frames charges against then TSO in disproportionate assets case | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Aug 13: Special Judge Anti-Corruption Udhampur S C Katal has framed charges against Shabir Ahmed Magray, then TSO FCS & CA Reasi in disproportionate assets case. The Anti-Corruption Bureau produced the charge sheet against Shabir before the Court of Special Judge Anti-Corruption Udhampur.
The case was the outcome of an open verification conducted into the allegations of raising disproportionate assets by Shabir. During verification, it was found that he is in possession of a double storey building on a plot of eight Kanals at Trintha valuing about Rs 60 lakhs, one double storey building over 1 kanal of land under Khasra number 22 min situated at Sidhra Jammu valuing about Rs 40 lakh, a piece of land measuring eight Kanals and 12 marlas under Khasra number 64 min situated at Reasi valuing Rs.20,000, land measuring 12 ½ marlas purchased vide mutation number 259 at Reasi valuing Rs.15,000, land at Batote valuing Rs.84,000, Car-i-10 valuing Rs.4 lakh and steel fabrication shop at Trintha, Reasi valuing Rs.2 lakh in his name and in the name of his wife.
During investigation, it was also established that the accused in his official capacity as then TSO had acquired the moveable and immoveable assets through corrupt practices and the value of the assets held by him and in the name of family members is Rs. 45, 16,972.91 which is disproportionate to his known source of income. The allegations of raising disproportionate assets by the accused have been fully substantiated.
Special Judge Anti-Corruption observed that in the case in hand it is mentioned in the charge sheet that the questioner was served upon the accused and the accused has submitted his reply which is not found satisfactory by the investigation officer. Therefore, at this stage it cannot be presumed that accused was not given opportunity to explain/account for assets. In the course of arguments the defence counsel has also submitted that the wife of the accused had purchased the land to the tune of Rs.1, 74,000 and the said land was sold in 2011 to the tune of Rs.7, 97,500 to one Sanjay Mehta that income to the tune of Rs. 6, 33,000 has not been taken into consideration. However, that income falls in the assessment year 2011-2012 and the grass income of the wife of the accused has been taken into consideration in the charge sheet.
The investigating officer took note of the alleged sublet work as contractor but the income derived from that work has also been taken into account in the financial year 2011-12. Even, if the expenditure as shown to the tune of Rs.20, 47,441 as investment in wife's business if it is excluded from the expenditure even then the disproportionate assets would be more than 30 percent.
The court said that it is settled legal position that at the time of framing of the charge the evidence assembled by the investigation officer should be taken on its face value and thus, shifting the material assembled during the investigation for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether there are any grounds for presuming that the accused is guilty of offences against him, I find that prima facie commission of offence u/s 5(1) (e) r/w 5 (2) PC Act. 2006 is disclosed against the accused person. The charge-sheet has been framed accordingly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
