STATE TIMES NEWS
JAMMU: Additional Sessions Judge Anti-corruption Kathua Kamlesh Pandit has directed Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) Jammu for carrying out further investigation and completing the same in 3 months, in FIR 20/2012 of ACB Jammu registered under section 5(1)(c)(d) read with section 5(2) of J&K Prevention of Corruption Act and 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 201 of RPC, wherein ACB booked the then BDO and Store Keeper for misappropriation for cement and steel.
During arguments on point of charge/discharge, it was submitted that on the verification conducted into allegations of misappropriation of cement/steel in BDO Block Barnoti, during 2002 to 2007 by the storekeeper Mohinder Singh (accused-2) and others, ACB Jammu revealed that misappropriation to the tune of Rs 9,21,735 has taken place in the stock of cement and steel stores of Block Barnoti by making false/duplicate entries of cement/steel in Stock issuance register and by fudging actual stock position. It further transpired that accused-2 (storekeeper) by abusing his official position and in breach of trust reposed in him as storekeeper, by making false and duplicate entries in the stock issuance record and by fudging of actual stock position misappropriated 4364 bags of cement and 12.97 quintals steel amounting to Rs 9,21,735 during 2002-2007. The said quantity was shown issued for undertaking different works under various departmental schemes, whereas it was not actually issued. The verification further revealed that on the basis of departmental assessment made by then ACD Kathua, a recovery of Rs 3,27,918 was made in the month of March 2006 from accused-2 (Storekeeper Mohinder Singh), amounting to criminal misconduct under J&K Prevention of Corruption Act 2006 Svt. and committed the offence punishable under section 5(1) (c)(d) read with Section 5(2) of J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, Svt 2006 and 120-B,409,467,468 & 471 RPC. Consequently, FIR was registered in Police Station VOJ, now ACB Jammu on 06-11-2012 and investigation started.
Additional Sessions Judge Kathua Kamlesh Pandit after hearing both the sides, observed that allegations against the main accused namely Mohinder Singh hereinafter referred as accused-2 are that he during his tenure/period between April 2001 to March 2006, committed the misappropriation of 4364 cement bags and 12.97 quintal of steel amounting to Rs.9,21,735/- and Dr Bharat Bhushan, who was BDO of the Block Barnoti, under whose supervision accused-2 was working, facilitated and allowed him to fabricate the record by authenticating fake/double entry in the concerned register. “The allegations against Dr Bharat Bhushan per see are generalized as Dr Bharat Bhushan had the tenure as BDO Barnoti between 05-10-2002 to 19-06-2004, so it is was impossible and impractical that he (Accused No.1) facilitated the misappropriation and criminal misconduct on behalf of the accused No.2 beyond his tenure. While as during the tenure of accused no.2 there were two more BDOs who had discharged their duties during the check period of main accused person (Accused No.2) but those BDOs namely P S Rathore and Dr. Sunil Sharma have not been implicated but cited as witnesses for the reason that they were instrumental in highlighting the mischief of the accused No.2 (storekeeper) but no such document is on record that these two left out BDOs have written to the higher authorities about the pilferage in the government stock as BDO Barnoti but the letter dated 24-02-2006 which is part of the record on the basis of which recovery of Rs 3,27,980 was recovered from the accused-2 suggest that the said letter was issued by the ACD Kathua on the directions by the then Minister for Rural Development and Panchayati Raj of J&K Govt., in which another person designated as Senior Assistant of the same BDO office Barnoti was also shown as defaulter of 1076 cement bags but prosecution is silent on the second defaulter. It appears that the six investigating officers, who conducted the investigation, did not bother to go deep into the surfaced facts in a professional way but they believed the statements of left out BDOs. In this case I have also observed that the prosecution while coming into the conclusion that there were fake/double entry of the Challan in the stock issuance register, which conclusion while going through the other part of the Challan/charge sheet suggest that duplicate GRs were printed by the main accused (storekeeper) which alleged fact has been also highlighted by prosecution witnesses namely Amarjeet Singh, Sham Lal Verma, Manish Jandiyal in their statements too but the so called six professional investigating officers have not ruled out the same, thus giving rights to reasonable suspicion regarding the investigation.
The court further observed that the prosecution has been able to seize only 7 files out of total 71 work files for the reasons best known to the prosecution. “The prosecution highlighted the non-cooperation of the storekeeper but never resorted to the procedure of search and seizure provided under Criminal Procedure Code. Also as per the record, there are proper indents with respect to most of the alleged fake/double entry challans but no investigation in this respect was conducted with respect to the concerned persons who made requisitions and approvals of the said indents. That the Audit report of the office of BDO Barnoti dated 08-06-2007 for the check period November 2002 to January 2007 was even not looked into during investigation wherein detailed Siphoning ,irregularities, discrepancies and the loss of supervision of higher officers was highlighted. Furthermore in this case the tabulations given under different schemes, given in the charge sheet, is also not strictly matching with the outcome of the investigation vis-a-vis cement bags/steel except double entry of the single challan. It is settled law that fair investigation gives rise to fair trial. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, this court is of the view that the charge sheet does not disclose the complete factual position vis-a-vis complicity of the accused and other persons if any, into the misadventure. Consequently the charge sheet is, therefore ordered to be returned for further investigation/clarification in the light of the observations made hereinabove in the proceeding paras. However, taking into account the time period that has lapsed already, it is directed that further investigation be completed within a period of three months positively,” the Court directed.