news details |
|
|
| Court acquits contractor, clerk of BRTF from cheating case | | |
Jammu, January 6
2nd Additional Sessions Judge Jammu Mr. AK Koul today acquitted Ashok Kumar UDC of BRTF and Pardeep Malhotra a contractor from the charges of drawing extra payment of Rs 50,000/-.
According to the prosecution case that on July 17, 1999 a written report was lodged with the P/S Crime Branch Jammu alleging that a cheque dated January 2, 1999 for an amount of Rs 3,05,000/ was drawn in favour of M/S Malhotra Enterprises Jammu as a payment for supply of bricks. Sometime after during reconciliation of accounts it was found that an amount of Rs 3,65,000 was debited to the bank in respect of cheque issued in favour of contractor thereby making an extra amount of Rs 60,000/. Matter was taken up with M/S Malhotra Enterprises; the concerned returned Rs 60,000/- to the complainant as per the report lodged. According to the prosecution case that in connivance with accused No 1 a UDC to have wrongful gain converted Rs 3,05,000/- to 3,65,000/-. Accused contractor deposited this forged cheque in Central Cooperative and withdrew an amount of Rs 50,000 on the same day. After collecting entire evidence, charge sheet was presented in the Court of law.
While acquitting the accused persons, Mr. AK Koul after hearing APP for the state, Mr. CM Gupta Advocate for accused No 1 and Advocate VK Chopra appearing for accused No 2 and also considered the record of the case and observed that there is no evidence to show that amount Rs 3, 05, 000/- was only due to him and accused contractor accepting a cheque of Rs 3, 65, 000/- would not prove his culpable state of mind. Thus one can fairly conclude that the material on record does not prove the guilt of the accused even remotely whatever evidence is sought to be relied upon, is miserably short of proving the guilt. Expert evidence has not found any corroboration, so it would be hazardous to frame an opinion of guilt on it. Court is of the view that the case fails, some more evidence was indispensable required to prove the guilt of the accused, which is missing so the case is dismissed and accused are acquitted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
