Early Times Report
JAMMU, June 21: The Additional Sessions Judge, Anticorruption Doda, Amarjeet Singh Langeh, expressed serious concern over the omission of witness statements from the challan (charge sheet). The court directed the Director of the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) to investigate the matter, determine why the witness statements were not included, hold the responsible investigating officer accountable, and provide a detailed report on the issue by the next hearing date. Additionally, the court ordered that the witness statements, which were reportedly submitted to the court of the Special Judge Anticorruption Jammu, be presented before the current court as well.
This significant order was issued in relation to FIR No. 21 of 2007, registered at the Vigilance Organization Jammu in 2007. The challan for the case, seeking the trial of the accused under sections 5(1)(e) r/w 5(2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, was presented in court on April 9, 2015. However, during arguments on the charge/discharge, it came to light on January 20, 2013, that the witness statements recorded under section 161 of the CrPC were not included in the challan. Consequently, the court directed the investigating officer to clarify the situation by the next hearing.
During the recent hearing, Additional Sessions Judge Anticorruption Doda, Amarjeet Singh, noted that one of the investigating officers, Superintendent of Police Rajesh Sandal, appeared in response to the previous order. His statement was recorded in open court, where he stated that he conducted the initial investigation and recorded statements of nine witnesses under section 161 of the CrPC. He submitted these statements to the court of the Special Judge Anticorruption Jammu through the SSP Vigilance. Subsequently, the investigation was transferred to Inspector V.P. Singh, who later passed away. Inspector Manjeet Singh took over the investigation on August 19, 2010, according to the present investigating officer. Interestingly, Inspector Manjeet Singh's name does not appear in the list of witnesses in the challan. The investigating officer present mentioned that only the officer who presented the challan can explain why the witness statements were not included. These circumstances have not only hindered progress in the case but have raised concerns within the Anti-Corruption Bureau.
In light of these lapses, the court directed the Director of the ACB to conduct an inquiry, determine responsibility, and address the serious consequences of omitting witness statements from the challan in a case as significant as one under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court emphasized the need to thoroughly investigate this matter.
—JNF |
