SYED MOHAMMAD YOUSUF Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER along with many other persons is booked in FIR No. 88/95 under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120B RPC read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, on incriminating allegations that the accuse including the petitioner conspired and brought about spurious and fraudulent orders in the name of the Government appointing large number of people fictitiously as teachers in education department in various districts of the State. Petitioner pleaded innocent and not involved in any manner in the scam and fraudulent appointments and prayed for bail in anticipation of arrest in the motion before the Court of Anti -corruption. However, the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption Kashmir rejected the application by its order dated 23.11. 2002. This order is impugned in revisional jurisdiction before this court. The revision petitioner/accused's counsel submits that the accused has been earlier granted bail in this FIR by Munsiff Judicial Magistrate Dooru, therefore, his anticipatory bail could not have been refused. The petitioner at the relevant time was working as Supervisor in Adult Education cluster, Yaripora. The Petitioner can in no way be connected with the commission of the crime as alleged. The trial court has not considered the report of the crime branch in proper context when nothing specific is stated against him. The petitioner could not be expected to have played a roll in passing the fraudulent order. The Crime branch has no authority to register FIR in a criminal case in an corruption matters, when the legal provisions exclusively reserved such course for Anti corruption/Vigilance organisation.

(2.) THE learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. Rathore has defended the impugned order. His submission is that the accused has not been given bail for any offence under the J&K; Prevention of Corruption Act or under any other offence of Ranbir Penal Code form a conspiracy angle. The trial Judge has appreciated the matter and passed a detailed order. It is not necessary that petitioner should have been posted in education Department though, Adult Education Department is a wing of the Education department, when allegations of conspiracy in a scam and issuance of fraudulent orders are alleged. Sessions Judge has considered in full the report of the Crime Branch and then rejected the bail. The Crime branch has jurisdiction to register a case even for offence under Prevention of Corruption Act against any Officer/Official of the State Government. On the subject Crime Branch as also the Vigilance Organisation have concurrent jurisdiction and both do act in this field. Under SRO 229 of 1976, and SRO 202 of 1999 both Anticorruption Organisation and Crime Branch or Police station have powers and authority within their respective jurisdiction to register and investigate cases under Prevention of Corruption Act and in respect of connected offences under RPC.

(3.) IT is not denied on either side that petitioner accused is name and wanted as one of the accused in FIR No. 88/95 for offences under sections 420, 471, 468, 120B RPC read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The grave allegations against the accused and others are under investigation. Accused as a part of criminal conspiracy is named in the scam of issuance of fraudulent/fictitious appointment orders of minimum 58 persons and the Investigating Agency has shown that the arrest of the accused is required for purposes of investigation. The accused has been granted bail by Munsiff Judicial Magistrate, Dooru as Duty Magistrate for the offences 409/420/468 RPC in FIR No. 88/95 of Police Station Crime Branch, Srinagar. Accused at no stage has been given bail either for offences under Section 471 or 120B RPC. He is not also given bail for offence under Section 5(2) of P.C. Act. These offence with which accused is charged in the FIR 88/95 (ibid) are not covered by any bail order.