1. The special Judge Anti-Corruption Kashmir framed charges under Section 5(1)(e)/5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and u/ s 12/14 of the Public men and Public Servants Declaration of Assets and Other Provisions Act, 1983 against the petitioner vide order dated: 15.11.1999. The petitioner seeks quashing of the charge as well as proceedings on the following grounds:-

(i) That the Commissioner having not been appointed in accordance with Section 10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Vigilance Organisation was not in existence on 03.12.1996 the date he constituted different teams for conducting raids and 04.12.1996 when FIR No.37/96 Vigilance Organisation Kashmir was registered. Similarly registration of FIR No.37/96 on 04.12.1996 is also bad and consequently investigation illegal because the office of Commissioner of Vigilance was lying vacant;

(ii) That the documents produced by the accused have not been considered by the trial court at the time of framing of the charge;

(iii) That the allegations against the petitioner for possession of assets disproportionate to his known source of income had earlier been investigated in the year 1981,1985,1991 and 1995, but were found baseless. There was thus no ground for registration of fresh case and investigation. The charge therefore, is groundless.

(iv) That the investigation of the case being in contravention of Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

2. Mr.Qayoom, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that under Section 10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Vigilance Organisation comprises of Commissioner of Vigilance and other officers. Since on the date the case was registered the office of Commissioner of Vigilance was lying vacant, therefore, the case could not have been registered. He next argued that the allegations of possession of these assets were earlier investigated in 1981.1986 and 1995, but each time the case was closed as not proved. The petitioner produced these documents before the trial court, but these were not considered and, therefore, the charge is liable to be quashed in view of the law laid down in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Mohan Lal Soni, AIR 2000 SC 2583.

Lastly it was argued by Mr. Qureshi that the investigation having been conducted in contravention of the Act, the charge has been wrongly framed and the proceedings are liable to be quashed. He also argued that the sanction is invalid because proposal to accord sanction has not been approved by the competent authority. Mr. Attar, learned Addl. Advocate General has controverted all these grounds. According to him none of these grounds are sustainable in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of M.P. vs. Ram Singh (2000) 5 SCC 88, H.N. Rishbud vs. State of Delhi AIR 1955 SC 196, K.Veeraswami vs. Union of India (1991)3 SCC 655 and Sushil Bhanot & ors. vs. State 1981 Chandigarh Law Reports 676. He also placed reliance on Umar Abdul Sakoor Sorathia vs. Intelligence Officer AIR 1999 SC 2562. 3. The question involved is whether existence of the Vigilance Organisation depends upon the appointment/posting of Vigilance Commissioner in accordance with Section 11. The challenge to the existence of Vigilance Organisation on 3 and 4 Dec. 1996 when different teams were constituted by the Vigilance Commissioner and FIR No.37/96 was registered is founded on the plea that Shri S.M. Desalphine having been appointed Vigilance Commissioner vide Government order dated: 19.12.1996, he could neither constitute different special groups to carry out special operations nor FIR could be registered. The argument proceeds on the assumption that under sub-section (2) of Section 10 the Organisation consists of a Vigilance Commissioner and such other officers appointed by the Government. Since the Vigilance Commissioner was appointed on~19.12.1996, so there was no Vigilance Organisation in existence. To appreciate the arguments, reference to Section 10 becomes nece

Click Here to Read the rest of this document