ABDUL AZIZ Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of conviction recorded by the Special Judge, Anti -Corruption, Jammu, in file No. 51/Anti -corruption dated 12/09/1997 vide which accused/appellant has been sentenced to suffer five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/ - in proof of offence under Section 5(1)(C) punishable under Section 5(2) of the J&K; Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 BK.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, depicted in narration, is that accused Abdul Aziz while posted as Naib Courty in the R. S. Pura Court was entrusted with case property relating to a case under F.I.R. No. 60/1989 including Rs. 2,100/ - by P.W. Goverdhan Singh and the accused also issued receipt for the said property on the Rahdhari No. 28 dated 23/09/1989 at the time of production of challan in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, R. S. Pura, and instead entering Rs. 2,100/ - in the Register Malkhana, misappropriated the same. The accused, however, is stated to have entered the other articles of the case property in the Malkhana Register against - Serial No. 77 of 1989 except an amount of Rs. 2,100/ -. Based on a preliminary inquiry conducted by the SDPO R. S. Pura, a case under Section 5(2) of the J&K; Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 409 RPC stood registered with the Vigilance Organisation. On the conclusion of investigation, challan was presented before the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Jammu, who after framing the charge, recorded the evidence of the witnesses produced and after hearing the parties held the accused guilty and, accordingly, convicted and sentenced him vide order dated 12/09/1997, impugned in this appeal.

(3.) WHEREAS , Mr. B. S. Salathia, learned Sr. Additional Advocate General appearing for the State, vehemently urged that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused under Section 5(1)(C) of the J&K; Prevention of Corruption Act by a convincing, reliable and positive evidence beyond any pale of doubt. He further submitted that order of conviction and consequent sentence of the accused, appealed against, does not suffer from any infirmity, legal or factual, to warrant interference in appeal.