STATE TIMES NEWS
JAMMU: Additional Sessions Judge Anti-Corruption Doda Amarjeet Singh Langeh rejected closure report filed Vigilance Organization Jammu (now ACB) filed in FIR 07/2013 for offences under Sections 5(1) (d) read with 5(2) J&K PC Act Svt 2006 and Section 120-B of RPC against officers/officials of Rural Development Department, Doda viz, the then Block Development officers namely Abdul Karim Tantray and Akthar Hussain Qazi and the then Executive Engineer REW Doda namely Kewal Krishan Gorkha, the then AEE namely Manzoor Ahmed Mir, the then Junior Engineers namely Surinder Manhas, Mukesh Sharma, Musrat Parvaiz Naik and some Village Level Workers (VLWs).
While rejecting closure report, Additional Sessions Judge Anti-Corruption Doda Amarjeet Singh Langeh observed that all that seems to have been done during the 2nd phase of investigation by investigating agency is that statements of some witnesses were recorded and a conclusion seems to have been goaded that construction work with regard to pond was carried out but same was damaged/demolished by villagers. “With regard to construction of graveyard, investigating officer alludes to some donation and no further details. And then with regard to execution of work of path/drain, report says that its nomenclature was changed by Department on insistence of public. Nothing more except this delightfully vague observation. Ironically enough, investigating agency has not drawn its attention in the Closure Report, on fraudulent drawal of money in the name of deceased persons and on withdrawal of money by the concerned officials on fake job cards of Govt. employees. However, an amount of Rs 1,19,982/- is said to have been recovered from some officers/officials of the Department without further detail seemingly to over-simplify allegations of serious indictment of officials concerned,” the Court observed.
Court further said that the investigating officers seem to have lost focus from real subject matter of investigation and have thus played with ducks and drakes to conclude that its case of commission of no-offences. The standard of investigation adopted in FIR in question, if I may say so with restraint, is far below that of a preliminary verification before registration of an FIR in vigilance cases. Investigation conducted shows, either total reluctance on the part of investigating officers to un-ravel the truth or pure lack of modicum knowledge of law needed by investigating officers to investigate a criminal case pertaining to one under Prevention of Corruption Act. With these observations, the Court held that the acceptance of this closure report is declined and same is returned to investigating agency for further investigation in accordance with law.