news details |
|
|
| VOJ presented closure report after 16 years | | Court declines prayer of SVO, orders to proceed further | | Jammu, July-28 :- State Vigilance Organization has presented
closure report for the approval of the Court in FIR No 78/1994 against
Mohd Kursheed Manhas then Range Officer Mendhar against whom
allegations for embezzlement/ misappropriation the sale price of green
forest trees and fire-wood and also some amount drawn from the
treasury against the bills for plantation but in fact the plants shown
to have been planted were not found on spot by the expert and also by
the departmental enquiry committee. The Investigating Officer after
completion of investigation concluded though misappropriation an
amount of Rs 2, 02,079/- has been misappropriated by the Range
Officer, which constitutes criminal offence. But instead of proceeding
further to take steps for laying charge-sheet in the Court recommended
appropriate departmental action and recovery of misappropriated amount
from the accused merely on the ground that after a gap of more than 10
years it is not possible to connect the accused with the offence in
case he is prosecuted and also that in the event of death of the
complainant the fate of instant case would be uncertain.
The court while refusing the closure report, took serious note of the
investigation and said that despite the sufficiency of direct and
circumstantial evidence, there seems to be no reasons whatsoever, to
close case against the accused. It is not at the whim of IOs as to
when the case is to be closed and when same is to be filed in the
court. The recommendations for departmental action by the SVO, though
is permissible under law but the departmental action does not absolve
the accused of criminal liability, if offences otherwise prima-facie
established against him. The Investigating Agency has not been given
discretion to close case, in any circumstances when evidence collected
admittedly constitutes offence, unless there are compelling reason as
for instance, the witnesses have died during the period or the
documentary evidence is destroyed or not available for the scrutiny of
the Court. Court does not know how Investigating Officer formed the
opinion that the accused cannot be connected with the offence. The
observations made by him in this report is rather totally inconsistent
to the evidence collected during the investigation and even his own
conclusion seems to have been drawn for the reasons best known to him
or even his superior officers who also did not bother to look into the
legal aspects of the case and the evidence the available on the file
and adopted the mode suggested by IO.
The court further took serious note of the investigation of the case and further
said that irony is that after 10 years of investigation the proved
case is sought to be closed on the baseless assumptions and
presumptions. It is also to be noted that despite the directions from
the superior officers to prepare draft charge for departmental action
and filed the closure report in the court immediately, it took long
seven years from 2004 to 2011 to file closure report in the court.
Court could not lay hand on any document suggesting the draft charge/
statement for departmental action has been submitted during this
period. Sequence of events as tell that the whole story as to why the
case was not dealt with properly. Rather there are reasons to believe
that the unjustified and unreasonable conclusion drawn, not to proceed
further with the investigation and seek sanction for prosecution was
if not deliberate attempt to shield accused but at least a casual and
unprofessional approach on the part of concerned officers of
investigating agency, which is not expected from a premier
investigating agency of the state dealing with corruption case,
especially, where a huge amount is established to be misappropriated
by a public servant.
Court further said that there is sufficient evidence
material collected by the Investigating Agency to proceed against the
accused and therefore, prayer for grant of approval to close case is
refused. Consequently Court ordered that VOJ shall proceed further
with the case and if accused is still in service, approach the
competent authority for grant of sanction, but needless to mention in
such eventuality, the sanctioning authority shall not be influenced by
any of the observations made in this order and rather than form its
own independent opinion. In case the accused is retired from service,
the Investigating Agency shall proceed accordingly for presentation of
charge-sheet and present the same in the Court under law as early as
possible preferably within two months. JNF
JNF/JULY/28/2011/1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
