news details |
|
|
| Court directed reinvestigation of the case | | Loan Case | |
Jammu, September, 20:- Special Judge Anticorruption Jammu Mr. JR Kotwal today directed Vigilance Organization in a loan case in which various senior officers of State Financial Corporation are allegedly involved, for reinvestigation of the case to identify the responsible persons.
This direction has been issued in a charge-sheet presented by the Vigilance Organization u/s 5 (2) PC Act 2006 r/w section 420, 201 and 120-B RPC under FIR NO 79 of 1995 in which it has been alleged that the loan documents of Truck No JK02B-5626 were prepared by S Mohinder Singh Head Assistant Office of SFC Jammu, which were verified by Mr. Rajinder Parshad manager transport. Both the officials in misuse of their official position and for their personal gain prepared loan case file of Truck and submitted it to Mr. SC Chopra then Chief Manager (accused). Accused with verification forwarded the loan file, which was based on forged documents to higher officers for sanction of loan. It is further alleged that when the officers/officials of the corporation came to know about investigation by the Vigilance Organization, accused SC Chopra, Rajinder Parshad, Harbans Lal Assistant Manager and Joginder Pal record keeper intentionally destroyed or concealed the original case file of the said truck.
Court while directing reinvestigation of the case observed that the investigating officer in this case has failed to collect material sufficient to identify the officer/ officials involved in the preparation of the loan case in question and later disappearance of the concerned file from the office of the corporation. All the five accused officials of the said corporation; it appears have been charge-sheeted on the basis of a general impression gathered by the investigators rather than on the basis of the material collected against them. The IO, it is clear, has failed to investigate the case in the right perspective.
Mr. JR Kotwal further observed that agreed the original file was not available in the office of the corporation and it may not have been possible for the IO to collect direct evidence as regard of the official involved in preparation of the loan case but the matter should not end their only and what is expected by the Investigators is to use their expertise to collect other evidence to identify the persons so involved. It is a fit case where the investigating agency should be asked to try further and identify with cogent material the responsible persons, charge-sheet based upon General Impression would not suffice and ordered reinvestigation of the case.
According to the prosecution case that S Paramjit Singh accused hatched a conspiracy with the officials of the state Financial Corporation Jammu to secure a loan of Rs 2.68 Laces from the corporation for purchase of truck in favour of fictitious person Dev Raj. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
