STATE OF J&K Vs. RAM SAROOP SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal at the instance of State is directed against the judgment passed by Special Judge, Anti Corruption (1st Additional District and Sessions Judge), Jammu dated 30 -1 -88. By means of impugned judgment, respondent has been acquitted of the charges under section 5 (2) to the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 (1949 AD) here in after referred to as the Act.

(2.) PROSECUTION case in brief against the respondent was that a complaint vide EXPW -SS was lodged by Shiv Dev Singh PW, hereinafter, referred to as the complainant with the Vigilance Organisation, Jammu against the respondent and other officials of the Labour Department According to the complainant, he had initiated suit for ejectment against one Gopal Sharma his tenant from a shop where the latter was running Embroidery shop. Further case of the complainant was that he had summoned official from the Labour Department as witnesses in support of his ejectment case. Before summoning such witnesses complainant claims to have seen the record of the Labour Department, wherein Gopal Sharma was shown as Sole Proprietor. But w.e.f. 01 -11 -1979, change was made showing said Gopal Sharma alongwith Chella Ram to be the partners of Gopal Embroidery Works. Thus, According to complainant, the record was tampered and entry was made by Ram Saroop Sharma, Shop Inspector -Respondent on 01 -11 -79, showing Gopal Sharma and Chella Ram to be the partners without there being any copy of partnership deed having been submitted by the tenant, Gopal Sharma because this entry was made with a view to harm the complainant in connivance with the Shop Inspector and other official viz. K.K. Sharma, because of such conspiracy of this Shop Inspector with ulterior motive to help the tenant for illegal gratification, the record was tampered. The Shop Inspector was liable to be punished. This led to registration of case and FIR Exhibit PWDC -I came to be registered. After completion of investigation, respondent was challaned in the court below.

(3.) ON examination of the matter produced before the court below, it was satisfied that there are prima -facie grounds to proceed against the respondent under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and section 465 of the RPC, therefore, respondent was charge sheeted on 22 -8 -95 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After the conclusion of the trial, respondent has been acquitted, hence this appeal.