news details |
|
|
| Multi- crore excise scam | | DB declines to stay proceedings pending before Trial Court | |
Jammu, Dec 21
The Division Bench of J&K High Court Jammu wing comprising Justice Nirmal Singh and Justice Hakim Imtiyaz Hussain in a much publicized multi crore excise scam has directed that the proceedings before the Trial Court shall continue but the final order shall not be passed till the disposal of main appeal.
This direction was passed in an application filed by the then Deputy Commissioner Excise with a prayer that the proceedings before the Trial Court (Special Judge Anticorruption) in so far as applicant is concerned may be stayed till the final disposal of the appeal filed by the state. The state had filed an appeal against the judgement of March 16,2005 passed by Single Judge Justice SK Gupta (since Rtd) .
During the course of arguments, Additional Advocate General Mr. BS Salthia submitted that the then Deputy Commissioner Excise Jammu and other employees of the Excise Department including the then ETO and Inspectors in league with the M/S Kuldeep Singh and Company Jammu hatched a criminal conspiracy with a view to get undue pecuniary benefits for themselves and to the proprietors of the firm by abusing their official position. It is further alleged that in furtherance of the said conspiracy, the said officials accepted fake and forged bank/treasury receipts indicating inflated amounts to have been deposited as bid money in the treasury/bank on behalf of the firm in question for release of liquor permits. It has been revealed that in the said conspiracy, the said accused officers/officials accepted 46 fake and forged treasury receipts and bank vouchers thereby showing that Rs 3, 19, 45, 288/- have been deposited in the treasury/bank in 1995-96.
The AAG said that in furtherance of the said conspiracy, an amount of Rs 3, 05, 45, 000 was deposited less in the treasury, thereby causing loss to that extent to the Government and corresponding benefit to the contractors, although an amount of Rs 1, 06 38, 400/- was deposited by the accused firm after registration of case. In the course of investigation, it has further been revealed that pursuance to the said conspiracy; the accused officials have taken various types of bribes from the contractor firm. A case u/s 5(2) PC Act 2006 r/w sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 466-A 201 and 120-B was registered by the Vigilance Organization, however, the single Judge, while allowing the petition quashed FIR No 34/97 as the government accorded sanction for launching prosecution. The appellants aggrieved of March 16, 2005 judgement field this appeal for setting aside the judgment of the single Judge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
