Jammu, September 14: In the HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU in CRMC No. 268/2013 c/w CRMC No. 267/2013 titles, Dalip Singh Vs Central Bureau of Investigation, Jammu after hearing both sides HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE ordered as:-
1. In both these petitions, though the Arms licenses are different but the common issues have been raised by the petitioner, so both the petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on the basis of a communication received from Special Cell, Delhi Police dated 10.09.1998, FIR No. 8/1999 was registered by the Crime Branch, Jammu against unknown persons on 06.07.1999 with regard to the issuance of large number of fake arms licenses to the non residents of District Jammu between the years 1994 to 1998 from the office of the District Magistrate/Additional District Magistrate, Jammu.
Subsequently, vide notification dated 27.12.2001, the Ministry of Personnel, Public 2 CRMC Nos. 267/2013 & 268/2013 Grievances and Pension (DP&T), Government of India, New Delhi with the consent of Government of Jammu and Kashmir conveyed through notification vide SRO 467 dated 10.12.2001, investigation in FIR bearing No. 8/1999 of Police Station, Crime Branch, Jammu was entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation, respondent herein for further investigation and the case was re-registered as RC7(S)/2002/SIU-I/CBI/SCR-1, New Delhi.
During the course of investigation, 20 arms licenses were investigated by the respondent.
Three Arms licenses bearing Nos. 55/JDM/95 in the name of Ajit Singh, No. 56/JDM/95 in the name of Manjodh Singh and No. 64/JDM/95 in the name of Feroze Khan form the subject matter of the charge sheet No. 11 dated 21.10.2011 whereas two Arms license No. 366/JDM/96 in the name of Bahadhur Singh and No. 511/JDM/96 in the name of Joginder Singh form the subject matter of charge sheet bearing No. 16 dated 21.10.2021.
3. In charge sheet No. 16, the learned Special Judge Anti Corruption, (CBI Cases), J&K, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) vide order dated 19.07.2013 framed the charges against the petitioner along with others for commission of offences under sections 120-B read with 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 of RPC and 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act Samvat 2006 and section 30 of the Arms Act. Similarly in charge sheet No. 11, the learned trial court vide order dated 30.05.2013, has framed the charges against the petitioner and other accused for commission of offences under sections 120-B read with 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 of RPC and 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) 3 CRMC Nos. 267/2013 & 268/2013 of the Prevention of Corruption Act Samvat 2006 and section 30 of the Arms Act.
4. In both the petitions, the petitioner has impugned the criminal proceedings as also the orders dated 30.05.2013 and 19.07.2013 passed by the learned trial court by virtue of which the charges for commission of offences mentioned above have been framed against the petitioner along with others.
The petitioner has assailed the criminal proceedings as well as framing of charges primarily on the ground that the charge sheets do not contain the licenses alleged to have been issued by the petitioner on the basis of which the petitioner has been sought to be prosecuted before the trial court. Besides this, issue with regard to the sanction has also been raised.
It is further stated that the petitioner was given clean chit by the Crime Branch in FIR bearing No. 8/1999 and was cited as a witness in that FIR and the CBI has unnecessarily arrayed the petitioner as an accused in the instant FIR.
5. The common response has been filed by the respondents in both the petitions in which it has been stated that the petitioner has issued the Arms license dishonestly for extraneous considerations by abusing his official position as a public servant in violation of the provisions of Arms Act and Rules made there-under.
It is further stated that the license has been issued on the false and forged documents and on the basis of false Police verification. The allegations those have been levelled against the petitioner have been reproduced in the response.
6. Charge-sheet bearing No. 11 and the order dated 30.05.2013 is the subject matter of CRM (C) No. 267/2013: a. As per charge sheet No.11, during the course of investigation with regard to arm license No. 55/JDM/95 issued in the name of Ajit Singh it was found that in the year 1995, Ajit Singh approached one person (name not known) through his friend Mr. Sodhi R/o Chandigarh for obtaining a legally valid arms license in his favour and he was assured to get a legal valid arms license and thereby dishonestly and fraudulently induced him to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for the said purpose.
Mr. Ajit Singh paid the said amount to the said person. Later on the said person delivered the aforementioned license to Mr. Ajit Singh, having been issued from the office of ADM, Jammu, falsely showing him as a resident of Sant Ahata, Below Gummat, Jammu.
Mr. Ajit Singh confirmed that he never resided at the aforesaid address and he is a permanent resident of Flat No. 205, Sector 33/A, Chandigarh. During the course of scrutiny of the said arms license it was revealed as under:
“Arms License Application Form does not bear the signature of the applicant, Shri Ajit Singh No proof of residence of the applicant is attached with the Application Form. No requisite fee receipt, as required u/s 16 of the Arms Act, 1959 is attached with the Application Form. There is no endorsement on the Application Form with regard to the deposit of requisite fee. Arms License Application Form was never sent to the nearest PS for police verification and there is no marking, endorsement on the Arms License application form for sending the same to the nearest Police Station for verification. Permanent address as mentioned in the Arms License Application Form is different from the address as mentioned in the said Character Certificate.
The Arms License Application Form does not bear the photograph of the applicant. Arms License Issue Register does not bear the photograph of the Applicant. Column No. 16 of the Police Verification Report says that recommendation of SHO be supported by Lumberdar/Chowkidar or other respectable persons of the locality, which has not been done in the present case.
The Arms License Application Form was directly dealt with and allowed by Dalip Singh (A-1) without any official notings.”
b. Likewise, during the course of investigation with regard to arms license No. 56/JDM/95 in the name of Manjodh Singh, it was revealed that the Manjodh Singh approached Devender Kumar Dhawan, accused No. 3 for obtaining a legally valid arms license and for that purpose, he paid Rs. 15,000/- to Devender Kumar Dhawan and he was handed over the Arms license issued by ADM Jammu.
The course of scrutiny of the said arms license has revealed as under:
“Arms License Application Form does not bear the signature of the applicant, Shri Manjodh Singh. No proof of residence is attached with the Application Form. No requisite fee receipt, as required u/s 16 of the Arms Act, 1959 is attached with the Application Form. There is no endorsement on the Application Form with regard to the deposit of requisite fee. Arms License Application Form was never sent to the nearest PS for police verification and there is no marking, endorsement on the Arms License Application Form for sending the same to the nearest Police Station for verification.
Arms License Application Form does not bear the photograph of the Applicant. Arms License Issue Register does not bear the photograph of the Applicant. The Arms License Application Form was directly dealt with and allowed Dalip Singh (A-1) without any official notings.”
8. After conclusion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer came to the conclusion that the petitioner along with other accused persons in a criminal conspiracy with each other and with unknown persons, cheated the private persons/licensees and thereby dishonestly induced them to part with huge amount of cash, on the false pretext of getting legally valid arms licenses issued in their favour.
In furtherance of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy, they issued arms licenses in their names from the office of District Magistrate, Jammu on the basis of false/forged documents and in violation of the provision of Arms Act and Arms Rules and further by abusing their official position, the petitioner along with other persons had caused wrongful loss to the State Government by not depositing the requisite license fee and causing pecuniary wrongful gain to themselves.
All the above mentioned arms licenses were issued to the applicants/licensees who were never residents of Jammu. All these arms licenses were issued on the basis of false and forged and bogus documents including bogus police verification report. ......
It requires to be noted that it is not the case of the prosecution that forged licenses have been issued, rather it is the positive case of the prosecution that these arms licenses were issued on the basis of false and forged as well as bogus documents including bogus police verification report.
All the licensees have admitted that they were handed over the licenses in which their respective residential addresses were shown to be at Jammu, where they never resided at all. As such, this contention of the petitioner too fails.
15. I have gone through the order impugned passed by the learned trial court and the perusal of the same reveals that the learned trial court has passed the order impugned well within the parameters of law laid down by Apex Court as such there is no illegality in the order impugned.
16. In view of what has been discussed above, both the petitions are found to be without merit, as such, the same are dismissed.