IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
M.K. HANJURA, J.
Sudershan Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
State through CBI – Respondent
Cr. Appeal Nos. 20, 21, 22, 25, 27 of 2016
Decided On : 24-09-2018
Corruption - Criminal Conspiracy - J&K Prevention of Corruption Act - 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 RPC - 5(1)(d) - 5(2) - [120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 RPC, 5(1)(d), 5(2)] - The court convicted the appellants for offences under 120-B read with 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 RPC and S. 5(1)(d) of J&K Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused were acquitted of the charges due to lack of evidence. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused and the evidence was insufficient and unreliable.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for offences under 120-B read with 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 RPC and S. 5(1)(d) of J&K Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused were acquitted of the charges due to lack of evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused and the evidence was insufficient and unreliable.
Issues: The main issue was the lack of evidence to prove the charges against the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court acquitted the accused due to lack of evidence and unreliable evidence presented by the prosecution.
Final Decision: The appeals were accepted, and the appellants/accused were acquitted of the charges for which they were tried by the learned trial Court. The bail bonds of the appellants stand discharged.
Key Points: - The accused were acquitted because the prosecution failed to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt and the evidence was insufficient and unreliable (!) (!) . - Identification of the accused through handwriting evidence and bank officials' statements was unreliable due to lack of prior acquaintance and no test identification parade being conducted (!) (!) . - The prosecution could not establish that the accused Sudershan Kumar received the specific income tax refund vouchers, undermining the core charge of criminal conspiracy (!) (!) . - The court emphasized that mere presence at a receipt counter is insufficient to prove receipt of specific vouchers without direct evidence (!) (!) . - Evidence from introducers of fake accounts was contradicted by the accused's denials and lacked prior acquaintance, rendering it unreliable (!) (!) . - The trial court's findings were set aside as based on insufficient, contradictory, and unreliable evidence (!) (!) . - The burden on the prosecution to prove both the conspiracy and the identity of the accused was not met (!) (!) . - The accused's signatures and specimen writings were obtained inappropriately during investigation, not before a magistrate or gazetted officer (!) (!) . - The court highlighted unequal treatment between accused introducing fake accounts, affecting the fairness of the trial (!) (!) . - Ultimately, the appeals were accepted, and the accused were acquitted with discharged bail bonds (!) (!) .
1. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 20.04.2016, passed by the Ld. Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (CBI Cases) Jammu by which the learned Special Judge has convicted the appellants named Sudershan Kumar, Kishore Sharma, R.S. Mehta, Sohan Singh, Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Tilak Raj Sharma, Raj Kumar Dogra, Amit Pal Singh, Shekhar Dhar and Tulsi Thakur for the commission of offences u/s 120-B read with 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 RPC and S. 5(1)(d) of J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, whereas the accused named Jia Lal and Satpal Sharma have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them. The convicted accused have been awarded 2 years rigorous imprisonment on each count and a consolidated fine of Rs. 50,000/- each in default whereof it has been directed that they shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two months. The appellants have challenged the judgment of the learned Special Judge, Anti- Corruption (CBI cases) on several grounds. Before coming to the grounds of the appeal, it will be appropriate and apposite to let give a brief background of the facts leading to the filing of these appeals.
2. The prosecution version that an FIR bearing No. RC 0042003/A003 came to be registered on 23.06.2003 by the CBI on the basis of a reliable information. According to the FIR, Shri Sudershan Kumar, LDC in the office of Commissioner of Income Tax, Jammu, Shri Jia Lal Peon, Shri Rajesh Kumar alias Raju Chowkidar of the Income Tax Office, Jammu had, in the year 2002-2003, entered into a criminal conspiracy with the accused namely Rajinder Singh Mehta, Kishore Sharma and others with the aim and object to misappropriate the refund amount due to various assesses by opening fictitious accounts on the basis of the forged documents. In pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy, Sudershan Kumar, Jia Lal and Rajesh Kumar Sharma by misusing their official positions as public servants, handed over undelivered income tax refund orders and cheques to the appellants, Sudershan Kumar Sharma and R.S. Mehta who opened fictitious bank accounts in the names of the income tax assesses in various banks, whereafter the income tax refund in the shape of orders/cheques were encashed. In this way they succeeded in encashing a total amount of Rs. 1,57,988/-. The FIR further alleges that the undelivered refund orders/ cheques were collected from the receipt counter of the Income Tax Department by the accused namely, Jia Lal and Rajesh Kumar Sharma, whereafter the same were handed over by them to the accused namely Sudershan Kumar, who distributed the amount received by him in between the accused Jia Lal and Rajesh Kumar for the services rendered by them. It is also alleged that the amount of refund cheques was misappropriated by opening fake accounts in the name of the assesses by the accused namely, R.S. Mehta and Kishore Kumar in different banks and thereby they encashed the amount of Rs. 84,188/- and Rs. 73,800/- respectively. The FIR disclosed the commission of offences u/s 120-B read with 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 RPC and S. 5(2) read with 51 (c) and (d) of Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 against the accused.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR, the investigation of the case was set into motion. After the investigation of the case, it was found that the accused Sudershan Kumar was working as LDC in the office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Jammu in the year 2002. It further revealed that the said accused was in contact with the accused namely Kishore Kumar and R.S. Mehta who used to visit him in connection with the refund of the income tax on behalf of M/s M. Way Corporation. The accused Sudershan Kumar, disclosed before the accused Kishore Kumar and R.S. Mehta that a large number of income tax refund vouchers are being received back in the Income Tax Department inasmuch as the assessees, to whom these refund vouchers, pertain are no longer posted in Jammu and Kashmir. The accused Sudershan
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.