Court takes serious note for not enclosing annexure of witnesses in corruption case, directs IO to clarify position

STATE TIMES NEWS

JAMMU: Additional Sessions Judge Anti-Corruption Doda Amarjeet Singh Langeh while hearing a case of VOJ (now ACB) on the charge/discharge, took serious note for not enclosing annexure of witnesses and directed Investigating Officer (IO) to clarify his position.
During the proceedings of case, Additional Sessions Judge Anti-corruption Doda Amarjeet Singh Langeh observed that allegations against accused Parshotam Kumar, Village Level Worker, Rural Development Department, Block Thathri, son of Duni Chand, resident of Batote, Tehsil Bhadarwah District Doda are that by indulging in corrupt practices and abusing his official position as a public servant, the accused raised assets in shape of moveable/immoveable property quite disproportionate to his source of income. Accused is said to have raised a property in shape of three shops at Batote, Bhadarwah and a residential house at Talab Tillo Jammu, a Car etc.
On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was presented in the court on 09.04.15 and matter was pending for arguments on charge/discharge. Court deemed it expedient to go through the statements of witnesses recorded under section 161 of CrPC during investigation.
In that end, when file was perused statements of witnesses recorded under section 161 CrPC could not be noticed on the file. Criminal Ahlmad was accordingly asked to thoroughly check the file and submit a detailed report. Criminal Ahlmad after thoroughly checking the file reported that this challan was presented in this court on 09.04.15 and comprises of 266 pages. Further, according to report of Ahlmad , throughout this compilation of 266 pages , statements of witnesses recorded under section 161 CrPC are not available and some have not been annexed with the challan. Report also revealed that even in the details of documents annexed with the challan given by IO, detail of statements of witnesses recorded under sections 161 of CrPC does not figure. Court said that in the first place, investigating officer of the case be put on notice to explain/clarify his position in aforesaid context by or before next date of hearing so that appropriate orders can follow up thereafter. Accordingly office is directed to issue notice as aforesaid to investigating officer to be served upon him through Senior Superintendent of Vigilance concerned, the Court observed.