news details |
|
|
| HC uphold acquittal in corruption case | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Oct 11: Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has upheld the acquittal in a corruption case.
Justice Sanjay Dhar dismissed the petition of Vigilance Organziation Kashmir (now Anticorruption Burea) against of trial court order which had acquitted the accused in a corruption case.
Justice Sanjay Dhar observed that the investigating agency had not done its job in a fair and professional manner.
As per the prosecution case, Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag had, vide his communication No. 1098/Misc dated 18.01.1989, written to the General Administrative Department that some persons have produced a photo copy of SRO 412 dated 27.08.1984 whereunder certain villages of Anantnag and Kupwara districts have been shown as backward areas, whereas in the original SRO 412 dated 27.08.1984 issued by the GAD, these villages have not been declared as backward areas.
This information was forwarded by the Secretary to the Government, GAD to Vigilance Organization Kashmir (hereinafter referred to as ‘VOK’) in terms of his communication No. GAD(MTG) STS/88-82 dated 15.03.1989. The VOK started the preliminary enquiry into the matter during which it came to fore that the respondent/accused Kuldeep Kumar (hereinafter A3) had produced a photocopy of forged SRO 412 before the Naib-Tehsildar Chatergul, Anantnag, namely the respondent/accused Brij Lal Zutshi (hereinafter A2) for issuance of RBA certificate in favour of his relative, namely Sanjeet Kumar Koul (hereinafter A4). After conducting the preliminary enquiry, the FIR came to be registered and the investigation was set into motion. After completion of investigation challan was presented and trial court acquitted the accused from the charges leveled against him.
Against the acquittal, present appeal was filed.
Justice Dhar after hearing both the sides observed that as per the material on record, the application on behalf of A4 was signed and submitted by his father Omkar Nath Koul.
This is clear from the statement of Investigating Officer PW12 Hakim Din DySP Omkar Nath Koul has neither been questioned during the investigation of the case nor has he been cited as a witness. Obviously, his statement during the trial has also not been recorded.
The Investigation in this regard is also lacking and no reason has been assigned for non-examination of such an important witness.
If the case of the prosecution is that the forged SRO was submitted with the application, then the person submitting the application should have been an accused.
The fact that the prosecution has not done so causes further dent to its case.
The prosecution has put up a story that the RBA certificate case of A4 was being pursued by A3 who is stated to have made a statement before the Tehsildar Anantnag and also filed an affidavit. It has come in the statement of PW-6 Syed Zahoor Din that the afore named accused was accompanied by Nazir Ahmed clerk at the relevant time who identified him, while making statement in the office of A1. Nazir Ahmad clerk has neither been questioned during investigation of the case nor has he been cited as a witness in the challan.
Obviously, his statement has also not been recorded during trial of the case. By leaving out important persons acquainted with the facts of this case, the investigating agency has not done its job in a fair and professional manner. This has resulted in leaving a number of lacunae in the prosecution case, the benefit of which has to go to the accused.
For all the foregoing reasons, the view taken by the trial court that the charges against the accused are not established beyond reasonable doubt, is definitely a possible view which can be taken on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution in the instant case.
Therefore, in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, it would not be open for this Court to discard the view of the trial Court and substitute any other view in its place. Thus, there is no good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court. Withthese observations, the Court dismissed the appeal. JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
