High Court upholds discharge of 8 accused in ‘corruption case’
Srinagar, Nov 10: The High Court of J&K and Ladakh, on Monday, upheld a decision by a trial court whereby it had discharged eight accused- five engineers and three contractors- in a case registered by the Vigilance Organisation Kashmir, now Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) Kashmir.
In its judgment in 2022, the Court of Special Judge (ACB Baramulla, Bandipora and Kupwara) had discharged the accused, against whom the anti-graft body had filed an appeal in the High Court.
The case in 2012 was registered based on a verification conducted regarding 19 work components that had been allotted and executed in the years 2007-08 and 2008-09, that after which period of more than five years ago.
Upholding the trial court’s decision, a bench of Justice Javed Iqbal Wani noted that no explanation regarding the belated registration of the FIR had been spelt out in the charge sheet filed before the trial court.
The same, the court said, was of significant importance in view of the nature of the works in question, as also the vulnerability of the same to natural wear and tear over a period of time.
The court observed that perusal of the record available on the file showed that the prosecution had enumerated 19 work components, claimed to have been inspected multiple times by the Engineering Wing of the Vigilance Organisation, lastly in the year, as per report dated 13.02.2018.
“In respect of said work components figuring at Serial Nos. 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18, no loss has been found caused to the public exchequer, even though said works have had been executed in Kacha in and around agriculture land in the year 2007-08 and 2008-09 and inspected between the years 2010-11 and 2018”.
The record also revealed that out of the 19 work components, four have been reported in the reports as “non verifiable” for obvious reasons, as the works indisputably have been executed on Kacha soil without any concrete and had remained exposed to ordinary wear and tear over a period of time, the court said.
It said that the law was settled that there must have been an agreement between the persons who were alleged to have conspired, and that agreement should be either for doing an illegal act or for doing so by illegal means.
“The only relevant factor is that all means adopted and illegal acts done must be and purported to be in furtherance of the object of conspiracy,” the court said.
The Court said that “leveling of an allegation of conspiracy without mentioning as to how, where and which of the conspirators hatched conspiracy and for what purpose or circumstances warranting inference of existence of conspiracy is not enough to constitute an offence of conspiracy, but an FIR should make out a prima facie case of conspiracy against accused persons as one cannot have the construction of fine superstructure without a foundation.”
The Court noted that a closer examination of the impugned order revealed that the trial court had not only been alive to the facts and circumstances of the case but also to the position and principles of law laid down from time to time by the Apex Court in the matter of framing of charge and discharge. The trial court, the bench said, has seemingly passed a well-reasoned order without committing any fault, illegality or impropriety.
The discharged included Ishfaq Ahmad Zargar, the then Xen R&B Division Baramulla, Muneer Ahmad Sherwani, the then AEE, R&B Division Baramulla, Khursheed Ahmad Hakeem, the then JE, R&B, Division Baramulla, Mohammad Ashraf Dar, the then JE, R&B, Division Baramulla, Zahoor Hussain Bukhari, the then H.D, R&B Division Baramulla, Farooq Ahmad Bhat, then Contractor (Deceased), Reyaz Ashraf Banday (then Contractor) and Javid Abdullah Bhat (then Contractor).
