2018 Supreme(J&K) 668
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
M.K. Hanjura, J.
Ghulam Rasool - Petitioner
Vs.
State through Vigilance Organization Jammu - Respondent
CRR No. 27 of 2013, MP No. 13 of 2013
Decided On : 16-10-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. P.N. Raina, Mr. J. Hammal
For the Respondent: Mr. Raman Sharma
Important Point – Criminal trial is not to be allowed to assume character of a fishing and roving enquiry.
Headnote:Jammu & Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 – Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) read with Sections 420/471/467/468/120 – B, RPC – Jammu and Kashmir Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 – Section 561 – A – Allegation of cheating Government exchequer – Criminal trial is not to be allowed to assume character of a fishing and roving enquiry – It is not permissible in law to permit a prosecution to linger, limp and continue on the basis of a mere hope and expectation – Charge against petitioner lacks support of evidence in any form – Charge against petitioner is groundless – FIR had been registered by Vigilance Organization after a preliminary enquiry had been conducted – Petitioner did not figure as accused in FIR – Sanctioning authority had itself held enquiry against petitioner in which he was exonerated – Impugned order and charge – sheet set aside. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 14 and 20)
Result – Petition allowed.
1. Under the shade and cover of this revision petition and in the alternative to be treated as a petition under Section 561-A, the petitioner beseeches that the order dated 10.04.2013 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Anti-Corruption, Jammu in case FIR No. 14/2005 of Police Station Vigilance Organization, Jammu titled “State Vs. Chowdhary Mohammad Hafeez & Ors” where under the petitioner has been ordered to be charged for allegedly having committed offences as are detailed in the impugned order dated 10.04.2013 read with the charge sheet dated 10.04.2013 be set aside.
2. The petitioner/accused has been arraigned on a charge of entering into a criminal conspiracy with the accused named Mohd. Ayoub and others and he while working as Tehsildar Surankote is said to have dishonestly and fraudulently by criminal misconduct and by misusing his official position committed forgery by preparing the fake documents of Faqir Mohd. Zaffar Ahmad, Mohd. Rashid and other prosecution witnesses for obtaining the relief and with the intention of cheating the Government exchequer he is said to have received relief cheques from accused No.1 and then deposited in the bank without their entitlement and is subsequently said to have withdrawn and misappropriated the same without paying them in the Hill Kaka Relief Scheme at Poonch, despite having knowledge that neither he nor those persons were entitled to the said relief, having received the same in violation of the guidelines set out by Deputy Commissioner Poonch, vide Order No. AC/N/29-30 dated 20.05.2003 and thereby he is said to have committed offences under Section 5(1)(d) punishable under section 5(2) of P.C. Act and Sections 420/471/467/468 RPC r/w Section 120- B RPC.
3. Heard and considered.
4. Shorn of the un-necessary details and looking at the charge, as has been framed against the petitioner by the trial court, it is stated that the petitioner, committed the forgery, relating to the documents, as these pertained to the prosecution witnesses named Faqir Mohd, Zaffar Ahmed and Mohd Rashid. The trial court immediately after referring to the aforesaid three names has added a further expression that reads “and other prosecution witnesses”.
5. Faqir Mohd is a prosecution Witness who by reference to the prosecution case itself is not a beneficiary. No account is alleged to have been opened in his name nor any cheque awarding relief has been issued in his favour. No payments are alleged to have been drawn in his name. Therefore the contention of the trial court, that the documents were prepared by committing forgery as far as Faqir Mohd is concerned does not hold any ground or substance. Zaffar Ahmed the other prosecution witness in whose favour a relief cheque had been drawn which was so drawn and issued by the ACR who vide an order of the Deputy Commissioner, Poonch, dated on 20.05.2003, (which is attached to the final report laid before the trial Court, at Page 59 and a copy whereof is attached as Annexure-C to the revision petition) was stated will be personally responsible to make the payments after verifying the list of the effected families. The petitioner does not in any way, in any capacity, seem to have been associated with the verification of the list of the effected families or the distribution of the relief, as was directed to be done, by the aforesaid order dated 20.05.2003 of Deputy Commissioner, Poonch. The statement of Zaffar Ahmed, prosecution witness who has been named in the charge framed by the trial court, is identical in all the essentials to the other prosecution witnesses. He has alleged that the accused Mohd Ayoub Patwari told him, that, he had to receive some relief for the receipt of which he went to the office of the petitioner herein, who, was posted as Tehsildar Surankote at that moment. It is further stated by him that he along with the Patwari named Mohd Ayoub, went to the bank, where he was asked to sign some papers and thereafter Mohd Ayoub,