JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
Janak Raj Kotwal, J.
Subash Singh Chib & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State & Anr. - Respondents
561-A No. 591 of 2016
Decided On : 20-02-2017
Section 561-A - Quashing of FIR and Sanction Order - Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006, Jammu and Kashmir State Land (Vesting of Ownership to the Occupants) Act, 2001 - 5(1)(d) r/w 5(2) of the P.C. Act, Section 17 of the Roshni Act
Fact of the Case:
The petition sought quashing of FIR, proceedings, and sanction order under Section 561-A of the Jammu and Kashmir Code of Criminal Procedure, alleging false implication and illegal sanction for prosecution under the P.C. Act and Roshni Act. The allegations involved bungling in conferment of ownership right in state land, causing loss to the state exchequer.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence collected by the investigating agency disclosed a prima facie case for framing charges against the accused. It held that objections regarding the validity of the sanction order should be raised during the trial, not at the pre-trial stage.
Issues: The issues involved false implication, abuse of official position, and the legality of the sanction order for prosecution under the P.C. Act and Roshni Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that objections regarding the validity of the sanction order should be raised during the trial, not at the pre-trial stage. It also highlighted that the absence of sanction to prosecute creates an express bar against taking cognizance against a public servant for an offence under the P.C. Act.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, allowing the petitioners to agitate the matter before the trial court after the filing of the charge-sheet.
Janak Raj Kotwal, J.
This is a petition under Section 561-A of the Jammu and Kashmir Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (for short, the Code) seeking quashing of (i) FIR No. 15/2014 dated 29.05.2014 of Police Station, Vigilance Organization, Jammu under Section 5(1)(d) r/w 5(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 (for short, the P.C. Act) and Section 17 of the Jammu and Kashmir State Land (Vesting of Ownership to the Occupants) Act, 2001 (for short, the Roshni Act), (ii) the proceedings conducted in the said FIR and iii) the Government Order No. 18-GAD(Vig) of 2016 dated 27.06.2016 whereby sanction in terms of Section 6 of the P.C. Act has been accorded for launching prosecution against petitioners 1 & 2, who are Public servants.
2. Heard. I have perused the record.
3. The allegations involved in FIR No.15 of 2014 (supra) relate to bungling in conferment of ownership right in 63 kanals and 15 marlas of State land comprised in Khasra Nos. 259, 260, 261, 263 and 264 situate at village, Katal Batal in favour of one Bashir Ahmed under the Roshni Act. The impugned Government Order No. 18-GAD (supra) would show that after investigation the Vigilance Organization has found commission of offences under Sections 5(1)(d) r/w 5(2) of the P.C. Act and 17 of the Roshni Act by the petitioners, who are/were at the relevant time public servants. These public servants are alleged to have abused their official position by showing non-agricultural land as agricultural land and thereby causing loss to State exchequer. As petitioners 1 & 2, are in Government service, the others having retired on superannuation, the Government has accorded sanction for their prosecution in terms of Section 6 of the P.C. Act.
4. Quashing of the FIR, the proceedings (investigation) and the sanction order is sought mainly on the grounds, firstly, that petitioners have been falsely implicated and the material collected by the investigating agency does not establish commission of any offence by them and secondly, that the Government order according sanction to prosecute petitioners 1 & 2 has been passed by the sanctioning authority without application of mind and is actuated with mala fides and the sanction is, therefore, illegal. It is contended that the FIR and the impugned Government order ex facie are illegal and highly motivated against the petitioners and therefore, liable to be quashed. It is contended further that the petitioners did not make any wrong reporting in the matter and did not commit any irregularity or illegality in discharge of their official duty. The investigating agency has failed to appreciate that petitioners had faithfully given their reports after conducting verification/re-verification. It is contended that accord of sanction to prosecute petitioners 1 & 2 is totally illegal, arbitrary and bad in the eyes of law as no offence has been made out against them or the other petitioners. Contextually, it is contended that a number of officers/officials were found involved in the case and sanction to prosecute all of them was sought by the Vigilance Organization but respondent No.1, in order to save all those officers/officials who have closed nexus in the corridors in the power for extraneous and mala fide considerations did not grant sanction against any of such officers/officials, but only targeted the petitioners 1 & 2 notwithstanding the fact that the petitioners have not done anything wrong nor have they taken any such action or made any such report which has caused loss to State or to the State Exchequer.'
5. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record of the case produced at Bar by the learned Deputy Advocate General, it emerged as common ground of both the sides that accused Bashir Ahmed has been conferred with ownership rights in 63 kanals and 15 marlas of State land comprised in Khasra Nos. 259, 260, 261, 263 and 264 in terms of Section 8(3) of the Roshni Act under agricultural use a
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.