Early Times Report
Jammu, Jan 23: Additional Sessions Judge Anticorruption Jammu OP Bhagat acquitted Hira Lal Pandita S/o Sh. Shamboo Nath R/o H. No.23 Building No.103, Lower Mastgarh Peermitha, Jammu then Executive Engineer, Migrant Camp Jagti Jammu who was facing trial in corruption case for the last 10 years.
Brief facts of the case are that complainant Sh. Rakesh Singh S/O Angrez Singh R/O Ward No. 5 Mandi Kotli, Samba lodged a written complaint on 16.10.2014 with P/S VOJ against the accused Sh. Hira Lal Pandita S/O Sh. Shamboo Nath Pandita posted as Sub officer (M) in the office of Fire and Emergency Services Jammu-Range, Jammu alleging therein that he had applied for issuance of NOC in the office of Director, Fire and Emergency Services, Jammu. His application was forwarded to Fire and Emergency Services, Kathua for field report who recommended for issuance of NOC. But Sh. Hira Lal Pandita, Sub officer (M) posted in the office of Fire and Emergency Services, Jammu demanded Rs. 17,000/- from the complainant for issuance of NOC. Before paying the said amount, the complainant approached SSP PR Wing, VOJ with a written complaint for taking legal action against the above said Govt. servant under rule. On the basis of this complaint the instant case as registered in P/S VOJ u/s 5(2) PC Act. Svt. 2006 r/w Sec. 161 RPC and investigation started. After this a trap team was constituted and laid a trap.
Additional Sessions Judge Anticorruption Jammu OP Bhagat after hearing both the sides, observed that the entire prosecution case also suffers from serious contradictions, which go to the root of the prosecution case and the relevant facts emerging from the prosecution case have not been proved on the basis of evidence so as to fulfill the ingredients of the alleged offences. So on an overall appreciation of evidence on record, in the context of the elucidation of law pertaining to proof of the ingredients of Sections 5(1)(d) r/w 5(2) & 4-A of P. C. Act as adverted to herein-above, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to produce any cogent and convincing evidence so as to prove the demand and acceptance of the amount as bribe, beyond any reasonable doubts and in the absence of proving the demand and acceptance, beyond reasonable doubts, presumption cannot be raised against the accused merely on the strength of the recovery of tainted money from possession of the accused. The law on the subject is clear that mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused, in the absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe. In the instant case, as discussed above, there is no cogent evidence on record to establish that the accused had demanded or voluntarily accepted the money. The circumstance in which it was recovered is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. The evidence of complainant is found not trustworthy on the demand and acceptance, the case of the prosecution falls in the category of doubtful cases. Therefore, in light of the discussion made above and keeping in view the aforementioned judgments of the authoritative Apex Court, the challan is dismissed and accused is acquitted of the charges leveled against him. |
