news details |
|
|
| Court framed charges in DA case against VLW | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, July 31: Additional Sessions Judge Anticorruption Doda Amarjeet Singh Langeh framed charges in Disproportionate Assets against Parshotam Kumar, Village Level Worker, Rural Development Department, Block Thathri S/o Duni Chand R/o Balote Tehsil Bhaderwah District Doda.
The allegations in the Chargesheet are that based on an open verification , it came to fore that accused by indulging in illegal and corrupt practices- accumulated huge assets beyond his known source of income as Village Level worker in Rural Development Department, Block Thathri. After preliminary verification, F.I.R No. 22/2007 for offences under section 5 (1) (e) read with section 5 (2) of J &K Prevention of Corruption Act was registered and investigation started. On the conclusion of investigation, it was established that as a Village Level worker in aforesaid department, accused accumulated disproportionate assets in the form of movable and immovable property. As per investigation, immovable property acquired by accused comprised of a double storey residential house at Balote, Bhaderwah. A single storey residential house at Talab Tillo Jammu and Three shops at Balote, Bhaderwah .
The movable property acquired by accused, as per investigation which is disproportionate to his known and legal source of income, included a latest model Alto Car, a Wagon-R car, furniture, textile items , electric items, various bank balances, insurance policies etc, etc as are mentioned in the chargesheet. Investigation concluded that extent of disproportionate assets of accused during the check period was to tune of Rs 7,10,022.49/- and disproportionate percentage was found to be 33.81%.
Additional Sessions Judge Anticorruption Doda Amarjeet Singh Langeh after hearing both the sides observed that Material collected by investigating agency during investigation would show that accused was appointed as V.L.W in R.D.D Department where he joined on 25.11.85. F.I.R was registered in the year 2007. The check period of the case was accordingly fixed from 25.11.85 to 15.11.2007. Further, investigating agency did not dispute plot in Talab Tillo Jammu was purchased by father of accused. All that investigation shows is that the house on said plot was constructed by accused in the year 2003. The plot in question, as per investigation, is one kanal situated at Gole Gujral Jammu. Further, investigation shows that accused has disproportionate assets amounting to Rs 7,10,022.49/- . The settled position of law is that at the stage of framing of charge , there can only be limited evaluation of material and documents produced by investigating agency and sifting of evidence must be limited to prima facie find out whether sufficient grounds exits or not for the purpose of proceeding further with the trial. The material placed on record by investigating agency and perusal of statements of witnesses recorded under section 161 of Cr.PC would prima facie show that property acquired by accused as aforesaid is disproportionate to his known and legal pecuniary sources as mentioned in the Chargesheet. Present, therefore, is not a case where material of sterling quality has been withheld by investigating agency relience on which could wholly negate the evidence/material placed on record by investigator. At this stage, court cannot be donned with the role of an accountant to see and evaluate whether agricultural (non taxable) income of accused and his family has not been taken into consideration during the investigation. Accused would be facing no impediment to raise legally permissible (pleas) in his defence and substantiate the same in accordance with law. Law does not envisage a mini trial at this stage. For all what is said here-in-above, it is held that material available on record collected during investigation - prima facie indicates involvement of accused in the commission of offences under sections 5(1)(e) r/w 5(2) of J&K PC Act Svt 2006 and a fortiori, therefore, it can not be said that allegations against accused person are groundless. Accused is accordingly charged for aforesaid offences and contents thereof are read over and explained to accused. Accused pleads not guilty and claims to be tried. —JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
