MOHAMMAD SIDIQ SHOSHA Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) While working in Kamraz Rural Bank, Sopore, petitioner had received cash from various account holders for depositing the same in their respective accounts, which was not done, as a result of which an amount of Rs. 8,63,0487-is stated to have been embezzled by him. FIR No.RC7(A)/99 Police Station CBI, was registered on 9.6.1999 by Superintendent of Police, C.B.I, under Sections 409,420,468,471,477-A, 201 R.P.C and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (c) of Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006. After concluding the investigation, sanction for prosecution was obtained and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C stood filed before Special Judge Anti-Corruption Srinagar.

(2.) At the time of framing of the charge, petitioner raised two preliminary objections, viz. (a) that investigation was conducted by an un-authorized person, and (b) that investigation conducted on the directions of Chief Judicial Magistrate Srinagar was incompetent as the Court did not have the territorial jurisdiction to issue such a direction. Special Judge Anti-Corruption, vide his order dated 9.3.2004 rejected both the preliminary objections and directed for framing of charge against the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved of this order, a revision petition came to be filed before this Court and vide order dt. 19.11.2005, the revision petition was allowed and the trial Court was directed to hear the parties afresh and pass appropriate orders within one month. The matter was re-considered by the trial Court where the petitioner repeated the contentions raised earlier by him. After hearing the parties, the contention of the petitioner was rejected and charge was framed against him. It is under these circumstances that present petitions have been filed.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The argument addressed by the petitioner on the question of framing of charge are similar to the one that he raised before the trial Court. His contention is that Raghbir Singh had conducted the investigation in relation to the seizure of documents, without any' authorization. He stated that since an un-authorized/incompetent person has been allowed to conduct the investigation, the same cannot be sustained, as such, whole trial is vitiated on this account.