THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

Pronounced on : 04.08.2021

CRR No. 35/2016

IA No. 01/2016

I

Bashir Ahmed Malik

……Petitioner

Through :- Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Advocate with

Assisting Counsel.

v/s

C.B.I Jammu

……Respondent

Through :- Ms. Monika Kohli, Advocate.

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

1.

The petitioner stands charged for offences under Sections 420/468/471

RPC in the challan presented by the respondent against the petitioner

herein. It is suffice to mention that the FIR No. 31/2011 came to be

registered with Police Station, Crime Branch, Srinagar but later on the

case was transferred to the C.B.I. It is submitted that the investigation

did not prove any case against the petitioner and a closure report was

presented before the Court of learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption,

(CBI Cases), Jammu. However, the court directed the reinvestigation

of the case. This direction of reinvestigation came to be challenged by

way of revision and this court directed further investigation in the

matter instead of reinvestigation as directed by the Special Judge, Anti

Corruption. The further investigation resulted into filing of challan

Suppl-1 List

S. No. J1

Coram:

2

CRR No. 35/2016

against the petitioner herein. It appears that as no case under P.C.Act

was established against the petitioner herein. Later the court of learned

Second Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu framed the charges against

the accused and the case was sent to the court of C.J.M, Jammu as the

offences were not exclusively triable by the court of Sessions. Indeed,

there is no dispute with regard to the aforesaid facts. The petitioner-

accused is aggrieved of the presentation of challan as well as charges

framed against the accused on the grounds mentioned in the petition.

2.

Before proceeding further in the matter, it is pertinent to mention

herein that the petitioner was an employee of J&K Civil Secretariat

and was posted as P.A. to Jeet Lal Gupta, then Special Secretary Home

Department at the relevant point of time. The allegation, in substance,

against the petitioner is that some arms licenses were issued by him

with forged writing and the said licenses noted that jurisdiction of the

licenses was extended to all India. The writing on the licenses was not

of the complainant Jeet Lal Gupta. The petitioner was dealing with the

files pertaining to the arms licenses at the relevant point of time.

3.

Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner-

accused, has made detailed submissions in the matter which stand

rebutted by the learned counsel for the respondent.

4.

The first argument raised by the learned senior counsel for the

petitioner is that there is no substance in the challan produced against

the petitioner as the investigation in the first instance resulted into

closure of the same and the further investigation which later took place

in the case did not for all practical purposes revealed complicity of the

3

CRR No. 35/2016

accused in the commission of any offence. The FSL report also did not

bring out the factum of the alleged signatures/writings on the licenses

issued were of the petitioner nor is there any other connecting evidence

against the accused.

5.

Ms. Monika Kohli, learned counsel for the respondent, has argued that

the facts and circumstances which emerged from the investigation

make out a case against the petitioner. It is not disputed during the

course of arguments that even the second FSL report could not connect

the writing in the licenses with the petitioner.

6.

The perusal of the challan reveals that amongst other it was also

established