STATE Vs. A K JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS motion is aimed at revising the order of learned Special Judge, Anti -Corruption Kashmir; Srinagar recorded in a criminal case file No. 1 of 02 -04 -1996 titled as State vs. A.K. Jain and others so far as it relates to respondent/ accused No. 1. It stems out of those circumstance which are summarised as:

(2.) THE Jammu and Kashmir Co -operative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. for short "the Federation" having its Head Office in Jammu and Regional Office in Srinagar Kashmir was established in the State of Jammu and Kashmir for the procurement and fair distribution of fertilizer and other essential items to the farmers and to the consumers in the State. It is in this connection there are always huge cash transactions in this federation. In the year 1990 -91, A.K. Jain the respondent/accused No. 1 Showkat Hussain accused No. 2 and Bashir Ahmad, accused No. 3 were posted as Deputy General Manager, Senior Accountant -cum -Cashier and Junior Assistant Field Officer respectively in the Regional Office of the Federation in Srinagar. The respondent/accused No. 1 and the accused persons Showkat Hussain and Bashir Ahmad came to be charge sheeted before the Court of learned Special Judge, Anti -Corruption, Srinagar for offences punishable under Section 5 (2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 and for offences punishable under Sections 409, 467, 468, 201 and 120 -B of the R.P.C. alleging therein, that accused No. 3 namely Bashir Ahmad received an amount of Rs. 542636.06 as sale proceeds of fertilizer against receipt Nos. 4029 to 4034, 4057 to 4066 from different Co -operative Marketing Societies; and accused No. 2 Showkat Hussain received an amount of Rs. 97200/ - from the Marketing Society Natipora against cash receipt No. 2598 dated: 22 -03 -1991 of cash receipt book account for LPG Gas, that this total amount of Rs. 639836.86 received by the accused Nos. 2 and 3 was neither entered into cash book nor accounted for in the books of the Federation by the said accused persons who pursuant to the conspiracy with respondent/accused A.K. Jain mis -appropriated it as the respondent/accused signed the cash book without counter checking the cash receipts. It is further alleged that the cash book maintained after 29 -06 -1991 has been misplaced.

(3.) THE learned Special Judge, who is a Sessions Judge, after hearing C.P.O. representing State and the learned defence counsel and on examination of the documents referred to in Section 173 of Cr. P.C. by virtue of his order which is impugned in this revision came to discharge respondent/accused No. 1 after holding that the charge against him is groundless and came to frame charge against remaining accused for offences punishable under Sections 120 -B, 409, 467, 468, 201 RPC and for offences punishable under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006.