MANSOOR AHMAD MALIK Vs. UT OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence dtd. 3/12/2015, passed by the court of Special Judge, Anticorruption (Additional Sessions Judge, Pulwama) ("Trial Court" in short) in a case FIR No.26/2009 of Police Station VOK, whereby the appellant has been held guilty for commission of offence punishable under Sec. 5(1)(d) read with Sec. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act ("Act" in short) and Sec. 161 RPC and has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years for offence punishable under Sec. 5(1)(d) read with Sec. 5(2) of the PC Act and also to pay a fine of Rs.20,000.00 and in default of payment of fine, the appellant is to undergo simple imprisonment for further period of six months. The appellant has been further directed to undergo one-year simple imprisonment for office under Sec. 161 RPC and also to pay a fine of Rs.5000.00 and in default of payment of fine, the appellant shall further undergo simple imprisonment for three months, and for setting aside the same.

(2.) The case set up by appellant is that on the basis of a complaint filed by one Sabzar Ahmad Dar, alleging therein that he was running a Fair Price Shop of the CAPD Department at village Reshipora since 2007 and the appellant demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.10,000.00 from him for issuing a report in respect of various applications which had been endorsed to him by Assistant Director, CAPD Department, an FIR No.26/2009 under Sec. 5(1)(d) read with Sec. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sec. 161 RPC was registered by the respondent on the directions of Trial Court, Pulwama. The respondent after registering the FIR conducted the investigation and presented Challan before the Trial Court. Thereafter the appellant was charge-sheeted but he denied the charges leveled against him and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, prosecution was directed to lead evidence in support of the allegations leveled in the charge sheet against the appellant. The prosecution in support of its case produced twelve witnesses. Besides the complainant, the prosecution produced a number of witnesses, including Tariq Ahmad Qadri, Assistant Director CAPD, Zahoor Ali Khan, I/C Deputy Director Planning in the office of Director CAPD, Mohammad Ismail Bhat Sr. Assistant, CAPD Department and Mohammad Shafi Sheikh, Dy. Superintendent of Police. The Trial Court, after closing the prosecution evidence, recorded statement of the appellant on 2/12/2013 under Sec. 342 Cr.P.C but no question was asked to the appellant by the Trial Court as to whether he wanted to lead defence evidence or not. The Trial Court, upon recording the statement of the appellant, heard the arguments in the matter and passed impugned judgment dtd. 3/12/2015

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter.