STATE TIMES NEWS
JAMMU: In a much publicized trap case, Additional Sessions Judge Anticorruption Jammu has directed Senior Superintendent of Police, ACB, Jammu to conduct further investigation after clarifying the facts into the matter and after concluding the investigation, file the charge sheet without any delay. Till then the accused persons are let off.
While directing further investigation, Additional Sessions Judge Anticorruption Jammu OP Bhagat after hearing both the sides observed that in the present case, it is alleged that on May 10, 2022 as a written complaint was lodged with ACB by the complainant Harmeet Singh against accused Arish Parvez Patwari Halka Gangyal and his tout namely Jatin on the ground that that brother in law of complainant Dewan Singh wanted to sell a piece of land comprising 6.6 marlas, falling under khasra No.150-min, situated at Dashmesh Nagar, Gangyal Jammu and he had applied for the issuance of fard Intikhab on April 12, 2022, but Patwari Halqa Gangyal namely Arif Parvez did not provide the Fard despite fulfilling all the formalities.
According to FIR, one Harmeet Singh had lodged a complaint in ACB P/S Central Jammu that his brother-in-law Dewan Singh applied for the issuance of Fard Intikhab on April 12, 2022, for sale of land 6.6 marlas in khasra No.l50-min situated at Dashmesh Nagar Gangyal Jammu, but the Patwari Halqa Gangyal did not provide the same despite fulfilling all the formalities. He was following the same before the patwari concerned as his brother-in-law resided at Akhnoor.
He visited Halqa Patwari concerned, a number of times, and requested him to issue the Fard Intikhab. But instead of issuing the fard, the Patwari Halqa demanded Rs. 35,000 directly from him. Also, his tout Jatin called him number of times to pay the bribe money, if he wanted the fard.
The amount was negotiated at Rs.15, 000 as advance payment for which he had been called by Jatin. A pre-trap verification was conducted by Inspector Sangeeta Salathia who submitted the report with the recommendation for registration of the formal case u/s 7 of PC Act 1988 and section 120-B RPC.
Accordingly, FIR No.05/2020 was registered at P/S ACB Central, J&K Jammu on May 10, 2022 against the Patwari and his tout and a trap team, headed by DySP Sagar Singh as TLO/IO, was constituted by SP P/S Central.
The ACB trap team laid a successful trap after completing the pre trap formalities, and caught the accused tout red handed while demanding and accepting the bribe of Rs.15, 000 from the complainant, whereas patwari managed to flee from the spot i.e Panchyat Ghar Babliana, office of the Patwari concerned.
The trap was successful as per challan. The accused Jatinder Singh alias Jatin alleged to have demanded and accepted Rs.15000/- as bribe. The said amount has been recovered from front left pocket of accused Jatinder Kumar alias Jatin.
Court further observed that since in the PC Act case whole of the investigation and trial revolve around the demand, acceptance and recovery of bribe money as well as seizure of service record of the accused Public Servant which is most important and if the service record of the accused public servant is not seized and then for what purpose the accused will be charged, is the billion-dollar question to be answered in this case.
Whether the accused will be charged for the offence under section 7 of PC Act and put them for trial on the basis of statement of the complainant and other witnesses cited in the charge sheet or whether the accused will be charged for the offence under section 7 of PC Act as per the seizure memo, which the investigating officer has seized during the investigation.
Court further observed that in the present case, as per the charge sheet accused public servant Patwari Arish Parvez has been charge sheeted with the allegation that he had demanded Rs. 35,000 as bribe from complainant. Harmit Singh and later through his tout namely Jatinder Kumar alias Jatin.
Similarly, accused Jatinder Kumar @ Jatin has been charge sheeted with the allegation of being a tout of accused Patwari Arish Parvez he had demanded and accepted Rs.15000 on his behalf as bribe from complainant Harmit Singh.
Court further observed that as there is no recovery of service record of accused public servant Patwari Arish Parvez is explicit from the final report submitted in-terms of section-173(2) of Cr.PC and it is, explicit that during investigation an error apparently appears to have been committed by the Invetigating Officers who had investigated such a serious case with out seizure of service record of accused public servant, So, on the basis of this error and documents placed on record and the statements recorded either under section-161 of Cr.PC is not in a position to frame charges against the accused persons, notwithstanding the fact that recovery of bribe money affected from the accused Jatinder Kumar alias Jatin has not been disputed and the question which assumes importance and significance is whether due to the error of I.O in preparing the charge sheet, accused can be discharged on this count only. The answer is in negative because for the lapse of I.O the case of the ACB cannot be thrown to the dust bin at this stage rather the Court is empowered to take notice of this lapse and the error committed is curable and can be rectified by the I.O, but this does not give a cause to the accused persons to seek discharge.
It is apparent that investigating officers have failed to perform their statutory duties and committed error while conducting investigation. A proper and fair investigation on the part of the investigating officer is the backbone of the rule of law. A proper and effective investigation into a serious offence and particularly in a case like this assumes great significance.
Now the question before this Court is whether a further investigation would be permissible for setting the things straight on record.
The Court is not merely to act as a tape-recorder recording evidence, overlooking the object of trial i.e. to get at the truth. It cannot be oblivious to the active role to be played for which there is not only ample scope, but sufficient powers conferred under the Code. It has a great duty and responsibility i.e. to render justice, in a case where the role of the prosecuting agency itself is put in issue and is said to be hand in glove with the accused, parading a mock fight and making a mockery of the criminal justice administration itself. Such a direction, thus, can be issued where there had been complete failure of justice and in a case where the investigating and prosecuting agencies were found to have not performed their role in the manner it was expected to do.