news details |
|
|
| Court accepts CBI’s closure report | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Sept 24: CBI filed a closure report with the observation that case could not be established against the persons against whom it was registered and so same has been closed as “Not Proved” and on the basis of investigation conducted the concurrence of the Court has been sought for closure of case finally.
According to the CBI case that case was registered on the basis of written complaint filed by one Rajesh Kumar Manager of a Factory at Gangyal in which it was alleged that Mr. SC Koushak Deputy Director Employees State Insurance Corporation was demanding illegal gratification of Rs 40,000 from him for extending a favour to him in settling the ESIC Account of his factory. The complainant was reluctant to pay the bribe and so he sought indulgence of CBI.
CBI after registering a case on February 4, 2010 and trap was arranged. After pre-trap demonstration the CBI team along with shadow witness, complainant and other independent witnesses proceeded towards the office of Deputy Director ESIC Shastri Nagar Jammu. It was alleged that SC Koushak indicated to the complainant in presence of Shadow Witness to put the bribe money on a newspaper provided by the former in the middle self of the rack lying in his office. The money was thereafter recovered from the self itself. After a thorough probe the IO was of the view neither the demand was clear nor was money accepted by Deputy Director in manner it was required to bring his act with ambit of the relevant provision of the Prevention of Corruption. The IO ultimately concluded that the case even if laid before the Court against SC Koushak would not stand the test of judicial scrutiny. With these observations Case was closed as “Not Proved”.
The court after hearing Senior Public Prosecutor and IO for the CBI and perused the closure report, accepted the same with the observation that law requires that there must be clear demand of bribe and its acceptance should be with a consenting mind, but in this case none of the two is manifest from the evidence collected by IO. That being so approach adopted by the IO in closing the case cannot be disturbed because there is no plausible reasons to do so nor has the complainant ever lodged the protest against the observations arrived at by the IO even though he was put on notice. With these observations Court accepted closure report filed by CBI in a trap case. JNF
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
