news details |
|
|
| CBI files closure report in diproportionate assets case | | |
Jammu, Nov 24
Central Bureau of Investigation/ Anticorruption Bureau, a prime investigating agency of the country, today filed closure report in the Court of Special Judge Anticorruption Jammu for seeking permission to close the case of much publicized disproportionate assets of then ARTO Kathua headquarterd at Lakahnpur Bumesh Sharma.
CBI/ACB registered a case on the direction of High Court dated April 17, 2006 whereby the case under FIR 20/2005 of December 6, 2005 P/S Vigilance Organization Jammu was transferred to CBI for investigation. The allegation as per Vigilance Organization FIR 20/2005 were that Bumesh Kumar Sharma s/o Mr. Brij Mohan Sharma the then Assistant Regional Transport Officer Kathua headquarters at Lakahanpur by way of indulging in corrupt practices and Benami transactions has amassed huge assets, which are disproportionate to his known lawful source of income. The accused Bumesh Sharma was alleged to have acquired immovable assets, namely Saraswati College of Education situated at National Highway Jakh Tehsil Samba, a 3 storied building with 10-12 Kanals of land, Durga College of Education situated at Katra consisting of three storeys with 8 Kanals of land, House in Sector No 5 Trikuta Nagar Extension Jammu and three shops at Transport Nagar yard No 2 Jammu in which a pollution control/ checking center is run by the accused. The accused was also alleged to have possessed other valuable movable assets like vehicles, jewelery, bank balance etc. The movable and immovable assets in possession of accused Bumesh Sharma was identified by the Vigilance Organization alleged to be disproportionate and far beyond the known source of income of Bumesh Sharma. The CBI reproduced the same FIR in its crime RC00422006A304.
The investigation of the case was entrusted to Mr. KL Raina Additional SP CBI/ACB Jammu and during the course of investigation it revealed that a case FIR No 41/1996 was registered and investigated by State Vigilance Organization Jammu against Mr. Brij Mohan Sharma, father of the accused Bumesh Sharma and the allegation of FIR No 41/1996 was that Mr. Brij Mohan Sharma while working in the transport Dept (RTO Jammu) has amassed assets disproportionate to his known source of income. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against Brij Mohan Sharma and Rajesh Sharma under Prevention of Corruption Act r/w 120-B RPC and section 12, 14 of J&K Public Men and Public Servant declaration of assets and other provision Act 1983, in that charge-sheet, same properties were shown to have acquired by Mr. Brij Mohan Sharma in conspiracy with his elder son Rajesh Sharma by corrupt and illegal means. The Special Judge Anticorruption Jammu framed charges in that case and accused persons preferred an appeal in the High Court against the order of Special Judge Anticorruption Jammu. High Court set-aside the order of the Special Judge Anticorruption Jammu and quashed the FIR 41/1996 of VOJ. Aggrieved with order of the High Court State Vigilance Organization preferred SLP in the Supreme Court of India against the impugned order of J&K High Court, however, the Apex Court upheld the orders of the J&K High Court and thereby FIR 41/1996 was quashed. As per the report, after the judgment of the Supreme Court, Vigilance Organization was not legally within its rights to register another FIR against the son of Brij Mohan Sharma for the same property. As per Supreme Court judgment there cannot be two FIRs against the same offence or occurrence. More over every person is protected from double jeopardy.
During the course of investigation it has come to notice that Mrs. Swati Sharma wife of Bumesh Sharma is maintaining a separate account and her account was showing a credit balance of Rs 1, 26,000/- on December 7, 2005. The income of Mrs. Swati Sharma as shown by her in her income tax returns is sufficient to meet such expenses and assets in her possession. During the investigation it has been revealed that as regards the four immovable properties shown in the FIR, the investigation has further revealed that out of these four properties, three properties have already been enquired into during the course of the investigation of FIR 41/96 of VOJ registered against Brij Mohan Sharma father of the accused Bumesh Sharma. For these three properties Bumesh Sharma cannot be linked in the fourth property namely Saraswati College of Education also Bumesh Sharma is not related in any way, because of the reasons that a bank loan of Rs 65 lakh were raised by Rajesh Sharma for its trust. Similarly, Rajesh Sharma for Durga Educational Charitable Trust also raised a loan of Rs 1.5 crore, hence Bumesh Sharma acquired none of the four properties mentioned in the FIR of present case.
On the basis of the statements, the extent of disproportionate assets if any calculated as assets at the close of check period is Rs 4, 47, 217/- assets acquired during the period of check Rs 4, 37,217/ against the income and other receipts of the accused during the period of check is Rs 14, 42, 147/-. The expenditure incurred during the period of check was Rs 8, 62, 269/-, saving of the accounts during thisperiod was Rs 5, 79, 878/-. As against the likely savings of Rs 5, 79, 878/- the accused was found in possession of assets both movable and immovable to the extent of Rs 4, 37, 217/- only acquired during the period of check. Thus the likely saving over and above the assets acquired by the accused during the check period and as such the allegation of acquiring disproportionate assets by the accused Bumesh Sharma is not substantiated at all.
In view of the facts and the circumstances of the case and evidence on record, the case of disproportionate assets is not made out against accused Bumesh Sharma and prayed that the closure report may please be accepted and this case may be allowed to be closed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
