GULL MOHAMMAD ASHRAF JALALI Vs. STATE OF JK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, the petitioners are seeking quashment of charge sheet (Challan) filed in terms of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) in case bearing FIR No.01/2007 registered at Police Station, VOK, read with Section 120 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) before the Court of learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Anantnag.

(2.) The brief facts leading to the filing of this petition, as stated by the petitioners in their petition, are that on 4th of January, 2007, an FIR, bearing No. 01/2007, came to be registered by the Police Station, VOK, alleging therein that sub-standard steel trusses had been used in the school buildings of various blocks of District Anantnag. The FIR aforesaid further alleged that the works have been undertaken by the J&K SICOP through Unit holder, namely, M/S Gousia Steel Industries, and that factually incorrect certificates had been issued on the basis of which release of payment has been made in respect of poor quality and under specification trusses. It was also stated in the FIR that satisfaction regarding quality/ specification of the material has not been made in connivance with the SICOP authorities and the unit holder, M/S Gousia Steel Industries and payments released, thereby leading to commission of offence under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioners state that on the basis of the aforesaid complaint, without conducting any preliminary investigation, the FIR was registered and, subsequently, on extraneous considerations and without having any regard to the fact that such works have been done in the same manner in the entire Jammu and Kashmir, only a few places were identified and the petitioners herein made scapegoats. It is pleaded that no action was taken against such officers who were actually involved for the allotment of work and release of the payment and other certificates, but only the petitioners were booked under the aforesaid FIR. The investigation was completed and challan filed before the Court of learned Additional Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Srinagar. The aforesaid challan was argued on charge, wherein the petitioners pointed out as to how they have been made scapegoats and unnecessarily harassed despite there being nothing against them. The learned Additional Special Judge, Anti- Corruption, Srinagar, vide order dated 16th of July, 2012, while observing that only the petitioners have been made scapegoats and that the real culprits had been let out, returned the entire challan to the Vigilance Organization, Kashmir, directing that it requires de novo investigation. The petitioners plead that after almost 07 years having elapsed, no de novo investigation has been made in the matter nor has the case been closed by the respondents and, on the contrary, the respondents have again submitted the charge sheet on the same facts and grounds without any enquiry as was directed by the learned special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Srinagar vide its order dated 16th of July, 2012, constraining the petitioners to file the instant petition.

(3.) Mr Naik, the learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that the aforesaid charge sheet is in total disregard to the directions passed by the learned trial Court on 16th of July, 2012 on the ground that the learned trial Court had observed that the Court has prima facie come to the conclusion that the investigation of the case has been shoddy, misplaced, misconceived, misdirected and full of infirmities. The learned senior counsel further submits that the learned trial Court has, by way of the aforesaid order, held that fair and impartial investigation is the right of the accused and, accordingly, returned the charge sheet with the direction to make de nova investigation so as to ensure competent, proper and fair investigation of all aspects of the case in order to meet the ends of justice. It is pleaded that since the learned trial Court has already observed that there is no sufficient material available against the petitioners, therefore, filing of the supplementary charge sheet without de nova investigation, is liable to be quashed. The learned senior counsel has proceed to contend that the learned trial Court has already held that the aforesaid enquiry had not only raised questions regarding fair investigation of the aforesaid case, but had also held the charge sheet misconceived and shoddy, thus, the filing of the fresh charge sheet on the same facts and grounds is is against the mandate of the directions of the directions of the learned trial Court.