BASHIR AHMED MALIK Vs. C. B. I JAMMU

JUDGEMENT

(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 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 petitioneraccused 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 petitioneraccused, has made detailed submissions in the matter which stand rebutted by the learned counsel for the respondent.