Back
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
SANJAY PARIHAR
Gh. Rasool Ganie S/o Gh. Mohammad Ganie – Appellant
Versus
State of Jammu and Kashmir through S.S.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY PARIHAR, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.02.2008 passed by the Court of the Special Judge (Anti- Corruption), Srinagar (hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court”) in case titled State vs. Gh. Rasool Ganie, File No. 1/B of 01.05.2002, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 5(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs. 20,000/-. He was further convicted for the offence under Section 468 RPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, and for the offence under Section 471 RPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years, besides a direction for recovery of pecuniary advantage of Rs. 2,19,757/-from him.
2. The impugned judgment is assailed, inter alia, on the ground that the Trial Court has erred in law and on facts by failing to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective. The findings recorded are contrary to the material on record and are based on misapplication of law. The evidence led by the prosecution is shaky, un
The prosecution failed to establish essential elements of forgery and use of a forged document, leading to the appellant's conviction being unsustainable.
The use of a forged document to misrepresent qualifications for employment constitutes cheating and forgery under IPC and corruption under relevant statutes.
The prosecution must establish all elements of the alleged offences beyond a reasonable doubt, and the burden of proof never shifts to the accused. In the absence of credible evidence linking the acc....
The judgment establishes the importance of proving dishonest intention and specific charges in a criminal trial, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof on the prosecution.
: While deciding acquittal appeal, High Court has to bear in mind that there is double presumption of innocence in favour of accused.
Insufficient evidence of criminal misconduct or pecuniary advantage under the Prevention of Corruption Act leads to the discharge of accused in a recruitment-related irregularity case.
Prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt and follow proper procedures in framing charges; failure to do so may result in acquittal.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
