Jammu, April 09: Justice Sanjay Dhar in High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh in a petition filed by Subash Chander Sharma challenging orders of the Special Judge (Anti-Corruption), Jammu, dated January 19, 2019, June 1, 2019 and June 8, 2019 has quashed charges framed against a Revenue Officer in a corruption case involving alleged manipulation of land records, holding that the investigation conducted by the anti-corruption agency was “half-baked” and failed to adequately examine crucial aspects of the case.
The trial court had initially, by order dated January 19, 2019, deferred consideration of charges and directed the investigating agency to examine whether the petitioner was actually in custody of the records or whether the responsibility lay with subordinate staff.
Following this, the agency recorded statements of additional witnesses and, on June 1, 2019, the trial court proceeded to frame charges against the petitioner under provisions of the JK Prevention of Corruption Act and Ranbir Penal Code, including offences of forgery and criminal conspiracy.
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that there was no material to establish his involvement in the alleged conspiracy and that the record in question was in the custody of a junior assistant.
It was further contended that the trial court had erred in permitting further investigation at the stage of framing of charges and that the subsequent material collected was procedurally defective.
The High Court, however, upheld the trial court’s initial direction for further investigation, clarifying that courts are empowered to order an additional probe even after taking cognisance if deficiencies in the investigation come to light.
The court found no bias or premeditation in the trial court’s order, observing that it had merely sought to address gaps in the investigation.
The court observed, “The purpose of undertaking investigation is not somehow to implicate a person, but its purpose is to unearth the truth,” adding that “the aim of investigation and inquiry is to ensure that only those persons, who have actually committed the crime are made to face the trial.”
At the same time, the High Court found serious deficiencies in the manner in which further investigation was carried out. It noted that the investigating agency had failed to determine the approximate period during which the alleged tampering of records took place, a factor crucial to assessing whether the petitioner could be linked to the offence.
The court also observed that the agency did not properly examine the defence put forward by the petitioner regarding custody of the records.
The court held that instead of undertaking a comprehensive probe, the agency had “taken a shortcut” by merely recording statements of two witnesses without addressing key forensic and factual issues.
It also flagged procedural lapses, noting that the additional material was not submitted in the form of a proper supplementary chargesheet as mandated by law.
In a significant observation, the court said, “The investigating agency has proceeded to submit a half-baked report that too without adhering to the mandate of law,” and held that framing of charges based on such material was unsustainable.
Consequently, the High Court quashed the order dated June 1, 2019 and the charge memo dated June 8, 2019, insofar as they related to the petitioner, while upholding the earlier order dated January 19, 2019, directing further investigation.
It directed the investigating agency to carry out a fresh and comprehensive probe in light of the observations made by the trial court and the High Court, and to submit a final report in the prescribed format.
The trial court has been directed to reconsider the question of framing of charges afresh after receipt of the final report.
|