STATE TIMES NEWS
JAMMU: Justice Sanjay Dhar of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court dismissed petition of Vigilance Organziation Kashmir (now Anti-Corruption Bureau) against an order of Trial Court whereby accused was acquitted in a corruption case, with observations that the investigating agency has not done its job in a fair and professional manner.
As per prosecution case, Deputy Commissioner Anantnag, vide his communication No. 1098/Misc dated 18.01.1989, wrote to the General Administrative Department that some persons have produced a photocopy of SRO-412 dated 27.08.1984 where-under certain villages of Anantnag and Kupwara districts have been shown as backward areas, whereas in original SRO-412issued by GAD, these villages have not been declared as backward areas. This information was forwarded by the Secretary to the Government, GAD to Vigilance Organization Kashmir (hereinafter referred to as ‘VOK’), which started the preliminary enquiry into the matter during which it came to fore that respondent/ accused Kuldeep Kumar had produced a photocopy of forged SRO-412 before Naib-Tehsildar Chatergul, Anantnag, namely accused Brij Lal Zutshi for issuance of RBA certificate in favour of one of his relatives namely Sanjeet Kumar Koul. After preliminary enquiry, FIR was registered and investigation started. After completion of investigation, Challan was presented and Trial Court acquitted accused from all charges levelled against him and against the acquittal, the present appeal was filed.
Justice Sanjay Dhar after hearing both the sides observed that as per material on record, the application on behalf of Sanjeet Kumar Koul was signed and submitted by his father Omkar Nath Koul, which is also clear from the statement of Investigating Officer Hakim Din DySP. Moreover, Omkar Nath Koul has neither been questioned during investigation nor he was cited as witness. Further, his statement during trial was not recorded. The Investigation, in this regard was lacking and no reason was assigned for non-examination of such an important witness. As per prosecution, forged SRO was submitted with application and person submitting the application should have been an accused. The fact that prosecution has not done so, causes further dent to its case.
The prosecution has put up a story that the RBA certificate case of Sanjeet Kumar Koul was being pursued by Kuldeep Kumar, who is stated to have made a statement before Tehsildar Anantnag and also filed an affidavit. “It has come in the statement of Syed Zahoor Din that the accused was also accompanied by Nazir Ahmed Clerk at the relevant time, who identified him, while making statement. Moreover, Nazir Ahmad clerk has neither been questioned during investigation nor he was cited as a witness in the Challan. Obviously, his statement has also not been recorded during trial. By leaving out important persons acquainted with facts of this case, the investigating agency has not done its job in a fair and professional manner, which resulted in leaving a number of lacunae in prosecution case and benefit of same has to go to the accused. For all foregoing reasons, the view taken by the trial Court that the charges against the accused are not established beyond reasonable doubt, is definitely a possible view which can be taken on basis of the evidence led by the prosecution in the instant case. Therefore, in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, it would not be open for the Court to discard the view of the trial Court and substitute any other view in its place. Thus, there is no good ground to interfere with impugned judgment passed by the trial Court,” the Court observed and dismissed the appeal.
