SITA RAM SHARMA Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these petitions have been filed by the respective petitioners for quashing of the order dtd. 24/6/2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Anti-Corruption), Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as "the trial court") by virtue of which the petitioners have been charged for commission of offences under Sec. 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, Samvat, 2006 and Sec. 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B RPC in the charge sheet, titled, "State through Police Station VOJ Vs. Sita Ram Sharma and others" arising out of FIR bearing No. 9/2011 registered with Vigilance Organization, Jammu.

(2.) In CRM(M) No. 764/2022, the petitioners have assailed order dtd. 24/6/2022 passed by the learned trial court on the following grounds:

(3.) In CRM(M) No. 512/2023, the petitioner No. 1 was posted as In-charge Assistant Executive Engineer in Rural Engineering Wing, Rural Development Department and the petitioner No. 2 was posted as In-charge Assistant Engineer in the Rural Engineering Wing, Rural Development Department and they claim that they had no role whatsoever and were never associated with the allocation of work to the Mate, procurement and issuance of material, disbursement of payment etc. which were in the sole domain of accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7. The petitioners were only associated for the supervision of execution part of work. It is stated that the allegations against the petitioners are that the Junior Engineer concerned had prepared the first and final bill of the work but the Assistant Engineer and Assistant Executive Engineer overwrote on the Measurement Book and treated the first and final bill as on account bill, by conducting the test check of 75% work of lane and drain at Chak Hassal in the month of March, 2006, whereas it was in the year, 2011, the 1st Vigilance Organization, Jammu team was constituted for conducting the spot inspection for assessment of loss, which assessed the loss of Rs.1,83,953.00 and in year, 2012, the second Committee assessed the loss of Rs.1,37,167.00 but both these Committees have not taken into account the effect of depreciation for the last 5-6 years i.e. w.e.f. 2006 to 2011-2012, effect of wear and tear due to weathering, encroachments etc. during the said period and VOJ has also not ascertained the fact as to whether after the execution of work of lane and drain in the year 2006, any other agency had again executed any work over the said lane and drain or not. The petitioners have assailed the order impugned on the following grounds: