MOHAMMAD AYUB BHAT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A complaint came to be filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, srinagar directing investigation and registration of the case against the petitioner on 23rd September 2006. The complaint states that the petitioner has procured his appointment as Trainee Engineer on the basis of fraud when he was not a qualified engineer. It is further alleged in the complaint that as a result of this fraud he is holding the post in the Public Sector undertaking without being eligible and qualified for the same and thus caused great monetary loss to the Corporation. This complaint came to be filed under Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Court without taking cognizance in the matter directed the investigating agency to have the matter investigated under Section 156 clause 3 of the Criminal procedure Code. That the Magistrate vide its order dated 23rd September 2006 forwarded the complaint to the S. S. P. Crime/ railway with the direction to look and investigate the matter in light of the averments made in the application along with the connected annexures.

(2.) AS a result of the aforementioned directions the police initiated investigation under Section 157, Cr. P. C. The investigating officer submitted his first status report to the learned Magistrate on 30th March 2007. The report reveals the following facts:

(3.) ANOTHER status report was submitted by the investigating officer. The same facts have been reaffirmed except for one feature which has been mentioned in this report that the petitioner has filed an application before the JKPCC stating that he was a graduate at the time he sought undergoing practical training. According to the investigating officer, this application was not traceable in the Department. Another report submitted by the investigating officer on 28th september 2007 reveals this fact that the enquiry is pending for more than a year due to the non-availability of the record, i. e. the basic application filed by the petitioner seeking his training in the said Corporation. It is averred in that this application is not traceable. Another report was submitted by the police. In the said report it is revealed that no financial implication is involved in the present case as the petitioner has not been paid any remuneration till he obtained the degree from the concerned University. It is stated that the remuneration of Rs. 2500/- per month were paid to the petitioner only after he produced degree before the corporation. The last report of 27th October 2007 also reiterates that the petitioner has undergone training w. e. f. 22nd February 1997 and no monetary benefits have been given to him for the said period. He has been given the monetary benefit w. e. f. December 1998 when he produced the degree. The report reveals that the basic application of the petitioner where he has stated that he is a graduate and the subsequent order passed by the Corporation directing him to undergo the training is not traceable. When this report was submitted, the Court below found that the investigating agency has not shown any zeal to trace out the application which according to him is a basic documentary proof of the subjectmatter. It is further observed by the Court that the investigating officer has not conducted the investigation with zeal and has taken the matter casually. As a sequel to this the Magistrate had directed the police to register formal case in the matter under the relevant provisions of law and take up the investigation in the matter.