news details |
|
|
| Court acquits JE | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Oct 27: Special Judge Anticorruption Jammu AK Koul today acquitted Raj Kumar Fotedar then Junior Engineer PDD M&RE Div-III Jammu who was caught red-handed by VOJ on February 6, 2003 while accepting bribe money of Rs 5000 from complainant.
According to the prosecution case one Gijay Kumar complainant approached Junior Engineer of the Sub-Division with the request for release of connection for Atta Chaki Machine at village Shama-Chak. According to complainant JE demanded a bribe of Rs 5000/- from complainant which complainant agreed to pay but complainant approached VOJ with the complaint. The VOJ registered a case u/s 5(2) (e) PC Act 2006 r/w section 161 RPC and laid a trap and recovered bribe money of Rs 5000/-. After obtaining sanction for prosecution of accused challan was presented in the Court of law. The accused has been charged u/s 5(2) r/w section 5(1) (d) (E)of J&K PC Act and section 161 RPC.
The court after hearing both the sides and also gone through the witnesses produced by the Vigilance Organization and also referred the judgment of the Apex Court and further said that one important aspect of case that cannot be lost sight of is that the conduct of the accused at the time of alleged raid and recovery worth notice, prosecution witnesses including the complainant have stated that he was crying that he had not received any bribe but he was still trapped for no fault on his part. The complainant says that accused was crying that he had got rent but he was trapped for no reason. Similarly prosecution witness Abdul Rehman Dar says that accused cried on spot that he had received electricity dues from complainant but he was trapped for no fault on his fault. Normally what happens is that when a person is caught red-handed receiving bribe, he gets perturbed and losses his balance but in this case the accused was protesting that he was caught without any fault. This conduct of the accused at the time of alleged recovery also assumes importance more so in the light of statement of complainant and some other witnesses.
Court further said that all these facts taken cumulatively do lead to believe that accused was implicated falsely by Vigilance Organization in spite of the reservation expressed by the complainant at the time of recovery. It appears that the complainant was reluctant but VOJ eager to nab the accused in any case on the charge of corruption. The case does not have any sound footing and prosecution appears to have miserably failed to bring home the guilt to accused. With these observations Court acquitted the accused of the charges leveled against him. JNF
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
