Early Times Report
JAMMU, Jan 31: Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul of Jammu & kashmir and Ladakh High Court set-aside the conviction of Mohammad Mansoor Malik, the then Supervisor/I/c Tehsil Officer CAPD Circle Zainapora Shopian who was booked a case under FIR No 26/2009 OF P0lice Station Vigilance Organization Kashmir (VOK).
Tthe brief facts of the case are that on 11/09/2009 case FIR No. 26/2009 under section 5(2) J&K Prevention of Corruption Act and section 161 RPC was registered against the accused in Police Station Vigilance Organization Kashmir on receipt of an order dated 05/08/2009 passed by ble Additional, Anti-corruption Court, Srinagar. "The direction from court came in the wake of complaint lodged by one Sabzar Ahamd Dar S/o Abdul Razaq Dar R/o Reshipora Shopian alleging therein that complainant was running a Fair Price Shop of CAPD Department at village Reshipora since 2007, and accused Mansoor Ahmad Malik, Supervisor/Incharge Tehsil Supply Officer, Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution System department (CA&PD), Circle Zainapora Shopian demanded and accepted Rs 10,000/- from the complainant for issuing report in respect of various applications that had been endorsed to him by the Assistant Director CAPD Department concerned.
Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul after hearing Adv MA Qayoom for the appellant whereas Sr. AAG Mohsin Qadiri for the UT, observed that in a criminal case, the Court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The large distance between 'may be' true and 'must be' true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied. In such cases, while keeping in mind the distance between 'may be' true and 'must be' true, the court must maintain the vital distance between mere conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived at, on the touchstone of dispassionate judicial scrutiny, based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case as well as the quality and credibility of evidence brought on record. The court must ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if the facts and circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely probable doubt but a fair doubt that is based upon reason and common sense.
Court after perusal of the material in the present case on the file as also the Trial Court record, when analyzed on the touchstone of legal principles insinuated hereinabove, leaves no manner of doubt that the prosecution in the instant case has failed to prove clearly and explicitly the demand of illegal gratification and, resultantly, the appeal deserves to be allowed and impugned judgement and order recording conviction and sentence of appellant/accused person deserves to be set-aside.
With these observations, High Court allowed the appeal and ordered that the conviction of appellant/accused person recorded by the Trial Judge in connection with commission of the offences punishable under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 RPC in case FIR No.26/2009 of Police Station VOK, is set-aside. The appellant/accused is ordered to be acquitted.
—JNF |
