SHAM LAL SHARMA Vs. STATE OF J K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed under Section 561a of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking following reliefs:

(2.) COURT of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Jammu, after perusing the final investigation report submitted by the Commissioner, Vigilance Organization and the Government order according sanction for prosecution, date March 16,1999, was satisfied that during the period from 1977 to December, 1995 the petitioner in his capacity as a public servant acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income and on or about December, 1995 he had been in possession of pecuniary resources or property in his name and in the name of his wife to the extent which were disproportionate to his known sources of income for which he could not satisfactorily account for and that he had acquired property both movable and immovable in his name and in the name of his wife without obtaining any permission in writing from the prescribed authority and the same had not been shown by him in his annual property returns. The Court was convinced that the above acts committed by the petitioner fell within the purview of section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (l) (e) of the Jandk Prevention of Corruption Act and sections 9/11/12/14 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Men and Public; servants (Declaration of Assets and Other Provisions) Act, 1983 and ordered that the petitioner be tried for the aforesaid offences.

(3.) SHRI D. S. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proceedings initiated by the trial Court were vitiated since no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as provided under Section 11 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Men and public Servants (Declaration of Assets and other Provisions) Act, 1983, enabling the petitioner to explain the reasons for non-submission of the annual property returns. Learned counsel submitted that due to failure to follow the above provision, the sanction order for prosecution granted by the government was also vitiated and hence prayed for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that the charge framed against the petitioner for offences under Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (e)of the Jandk Prevention of Corruption Act and sections 9/11/12/14 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Men and Public Servants (Declaration of Assets and Other Provisions) Act, 1983 is bad in the eye of law. Learned counsel laid stress on the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in S. K. Puri v state.