Early Times Report
JAMMU, Oct 31: Special Judge Anticorruption Jammu Tahir Khurshid Raina framed charges against Dr. Hemla Aggarwal then Principal Govt. SPMR College of Commerce, Jammu, Jia Lal, then Accounts Assistant of Govt. SPMR College of Commerce, Jagdish Kumar, then Storekeeper at Govt. SPMR College of Commerce, Sunil Malik, Proprietor M/S Sun Broadcast Equipments Pvt. Ltd, Bhavnish Sachdeva Sr. Manager M/S Sun Broadcast Equipment Pvt. Ltd and Vinay Kumar Thakur, Proprietor M/S Audio Video Centre in purchase scam.
The gravamen of the accusations as put in the summary of the charge-sheet is that the accused No. 1, Professor Hemla Aggarwal, Principal Commerce College, Jammu, has purchased I-Mac system software on exorbitant rates without any requisition for the same made by the concerned faculty of the college. That the said purchase was made in violation of the codal formalities. As inferred from the charge-sheet, even the softwares of the system, namely Final Cut Plugging, Edius-4 Conopus and Adobe Master Collection CS3, were not found available in the system. The verification conducted further revealed that Sh. Jagdish Kumar, accused No. 3, then posted as Storekeeper in the college has received the bill of I-Mac system and its accessories from accused No. 1 and entered the same in the Stock Register which were duly attested by the latter. However, the system was not received in physical form by accused No. 3 but received after two months, without verifying the originality of the software purchased for I-Mac System. As reflected from the charge-sheet, the said I-Mach System was in fact already lying with Dr. Hemla Aggarwal since 2008 and the software was loaded on the system prior to date of purchase/billing of the same at Govt. SPMR College of Commerce, Jammu. It is inferred from the charge-sheet that accused No. 1, in the capacity of DDO/Principal at Govt. SPMR College of Commerce, Jammu, with dishonest intention hatched a conspiracy with the co-accused Jia Lal who was then posted as Accountant in the same college, mooted a proposal without any requisition from any department of the College and without following the Codal formalities for purchase of the I-Mac System, purchased the same. Thus fake bills were prepared for the I-Mac and of the softwares which were already in the possession of the accused No. 1 and got the same entered in the Stock Register of the college through accused Jagdish Kumar, then Storekeeper. She also got the system verified from a person named Rajinder Kumar Raina, a non-technical person of the Doordarshan Kendra, Jammu, passed the bills and made payment to the dealers at New Delhi viz, Sh. Sunil Malik (accused No.4) Proprietor M/S Sun Broadcast Equipments Ptv. Ltd. and Sh. Vinay Kumar Thakur (accused No. 6), Proprietor M/S Audio Video Centre through Bhavnish Sachdeva (accused No.5), co-accused and then Sr. Manager of M/S Sun Broadcast Equipments Pvt. Ltd. thereby causing loss to the tune of Rs. 4,05,600/- which includes Rs. 78,000/- for Final Cut Plugging, Rs. 46,800/- for Edius 4 Canopus, Rs. 1,40,400/- for Adobe Master Collection CS3 and Rs. 1,40,400/-for I-Mac Gfx Workstation.
Special Judge Anticorruption Jammu Tahir Khurshid Raina after hearing APP Irshad Ahmed Sheikh for the ACB, observed that finally, based on the facts, law and evidence, as stand discussed in the preceding paras, I have found that the material on record prima-facie gives presumption of guilt of the accused and sufficiently connects the accused with the commission of the offences as mentioned in the charge-sheet. Law is very well settled in context of stage of hearing on the charge that the court has not to examine the evidentiary value of the documents produced by the prosecution at this stage nor the evidence collected by the investigating agency is to be scrutinized in the same manner as is required for recording conviction or acquittal of an accused. However, at the same time law does not permit the court to act as the post office and treat every word of the prosecution as gospel truth and frame charges against the accused. Law has put an onerous duty on the court to apply its mind to the material on record, independently of the accusations drawn by the prosecution and has to come to its own conclusion based on prima-facie appreciation of the material. —JNF |
