O P DOGRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will govern the disposal of Criminal Revision Petitions Nos. 58, 77 and 78 of 1979 as they arise out of the same order passed by Special Judge Anti Corruption, Jammu, and their decision also turns upon the same questions of law and facts.

(2.) IN Oct. 1973, as the prosecution story goes, the petitioner O. P. Dogra, while he was posted as Assistant Divisional Manager, Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company, Jammu, he laid a false claim of Rs. 1,355/- with Messrs. Jupiter Insurance Company, Jammu, with whom the car had been insured that car bearing No. JKN 8228 belonging to Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company, which he was using in his official capacity, had met with an accident. On this, the company with which the car had been insured, deputed petitioner Balrai Kohli, a surveyor, to assess the damage and make a report accordingly. Suspicion having arisen that he had submitted a false report in conspiracy with petitioner O. P. Dogra, another person namely, J. K. Whig was appointed to assess the damage, who reported that the car had not met with any accident at all, and the claim made by petitioner O. P. Dogra was false and fabricated. Petitioner Sat Brat Sharma, who was then Regional Manager, Jupiter Insurance Company, Amballa, on receipt of the report submitted by J. K. Whig, persuaded the latter to change his report so as to conform to the one submitted by petitioner Balrai Kohli. He did not change his report, but added a para to it that in the interest of both the companies the accident claim to the extent it was verified by petitioner Balrai Kohli may be allowed. On this, petitioners Sat Brat Sharma and Jugal Kishore, who were the members of the Claims Committee, allowed the claim as a consequence whereof a sum of Rs. 742/- was paid to petitioner O. P. Dogra by means of a cheque which was also encashed by him. On these allegations a challan under Sections 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 R. P. C. and Section 5 (2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006, was put up against all the aforesaid four petitioners in the court of Special Judge Anti Corruption Jammu. The petitioners challenged their trial before him on two grounds: firstly, that they were not state subjects; and secondly, that they were not public servants within the meaning of Section 21 R. P. C. Both the grounds were negatived by the Special Judge, who consequently charge-sheeted them for the aforesaid offences, hence the revision petitions,

(3.) BEFORE us the ground that the Special Judge had no jurisdiction to try them because they were not State subjects was not pressed by the petitioners. They, however, challenged his jurisdiction to try them on two grounds: one, that they were not public servants within the meaning of Section 21; and two, that there was absolutely no evidence to connect them with the offence charged. An additional ground that there was no proper sanction to prosecute him was also raised on behalf of petitioner Balraj Kohli.