news details |
|
|
| Court acquitts food inspector after 10 years | | | EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, Nov: 19 (JNF):- Special Judge Anticorruption Jammu, AK Koul has acquitted Vijay Kumar Verma the former Inspector Food & Supplies Jammu who was caught red-handed on May 2, 2000 while accepting Rs 1000/- from complainant for sanction additional allotment of kerosene oil quote after ten years trial and investigation.
According to the case a complaint was lodged before SSP VOJ for an action against said inspector, the complainant who was attorney holder of a Kerosene oil dealer submitted that he approached the said inspector in food and supply office Jammu for an additional allotment of kerosene oil quote but he demanded illegal gratification of Rs 1000 from the complainant for releasing the additional quote. Upon this complainant ready to pay illegal gratification to alleged accused on May 2, 2000 and filed a complaint which was registered 5(2) JK PC Act 2006 r/w section 161 RPC and laid a trap and caught red-handed Inspector Vijay Kumar and recovered the bribe amount from his possession and he was arrested and after completion of investigation presented challan in the Court of Special Judge Anticorruption Jammu.
The court after hearing CPO for the VOJ and Advocate KK Sharma for the accused gone through the statement of witnesses and also the referred judgment and observed that there is no evidence of any demand having been made by accused for illegal gratification from the complainant. The acceptance of money is also in a realm of doubt because of one of the independent witness has refuted that part of the case. Another independent witness has not seen accused accepting the money. It is only the Vigilance Officials who have stated about the recovery of tainted notes from the accused. Their statement cannot be taken conclusive to form an opinion of guilt against the accused because all of them were the members of the raiding party and so they were surely partisan witnesses and there should have been some independent corroboration of their testimony which obviously is not there. Even if there statements are relied upon still what could be said to be established is that accepted money was recovered from accused and in view of the legal position is not sufficient to prove the guilt of accused. Thus the inevitable conclusion is that the prosecution case is not based on sound footing and as such there is no option but to hold accused innocent. There nexus between the guilt and the guilty is not insight even remotely in the instant case. The case is dismissed and accused is acquitted of all the charges leveled against him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
