JAMMU, Apr 9 (JNF): Justice YP Nargotra of Jammu and Kashmir High Court Jammu wing, in two writ petitions filed by Vigilance Organisation Jammu and GL Abrol presently incharge General Manager JAKFED Jammu seeking that order passed by special judge anti-corruption Jammu on November 2003 whereby the court has refused to accept the closure report filed by Vigilance Organisation be quashed, summoned record of the case and issued notice to the respondents.
In a revision petition filed by the Vigilance Organisation through the Additional Advocate General BS Slathia in which the Vigilance Organisation submitted that after a secret enquiry by the Vigilance Organisation, it came to the light that GL Abrol, son of Sham Lal, the then Assistant General Manager presently the Deputy General Manager JAKFED Jammu has raised a disproportionate assets in his name and in the name of his kith and kin.
These assets were in the shape of a house at Subash Nagar, matadors, a plot in Chhanni Himmat, lockers in PNB and fixed deposits in Central Co-operative Bank, and J&K Bank.
The petition submitted that he has four trucks and another house at Trikuta Nagar and it added the assets possessed by GL Abrol are disproportionate to his known source of income.
A case under FIR No.
25/97 U/S 5(2) PC Act 2006 was registered and investigation carried.
After completion of the investigation, however, the Managing Director JAKFED conveyed his disagreement to accord sanction to the prosecution of GL Abrol.
For want of sanction Abrol could not be prosecuted.
The Vigilance Organisation filed a closure report of a case in the court, however the court on November 5, 2003 refused to accept the report and issued direction to the Commissioner Vigilance Organisation to place the matter before state government for review of the order in terms of which sanction to prosecution has been refused.
In another petition filed by GL Abrol accused in the case, U/S 561-A CrPC through advocate Ruchi Bhakhri, for quashing and setting aside the order dated: November 5, 2003 passed by the special judge anti-corruption Jammu directing the Vigilance Organisation Jammu for the review of the order whereby the sanction to prosecute the accused/petitioner has been declined.
On the ground that there are contradictory reports of two investigating officers, in which the first investigating officer has recommended the closure of the case.
Despite these inherent contradictions the Vigilance Organisation sent the file to the Commissioner/Secretary to government for accord of sanction to prosecute the petitioner, who inturn sent it to the competent authority JAKFED Board the Managing Director who refused to grant saction.
The special judge anti-corruption Jammu refused to accept the final report of closure of the case.
Accused petitioner GL Abrol in the petition submitted the report of the Managing Director JAKFED Jammu dated: Feb.
15, 2003 whereby the sanction was not accorded and also submitted a opinion of law department signed and stamped by Administrative Officer JAKFED.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case it is not a fit case for launching a criminal prosecution, the opinion of the law Department disclosed.
JDA complex murder case HC dismisses petition seeking FIR quashing JAMMU, Apr 9 (JNF): In a significant judgement Justice YP Nargotra of Jammu and Kashmir High Court Jammu wing has dismissed a petition filed by brother of one of the accused facing trial in a much publicised JDA complex murder case and also vacated the interim direction regarding not arresting the accused in the FIR registered on the direction of Principal Sessions Judge Jammu.
Principal Sessions Judge Jammu on the complaint of prosecution ordered for transmission of the petition in original to SSP Crime Branch Jammu for registration of the case and investigation in the alleged fame medical certificate produced by the petitioner Manohar Singh, who moved an application for grant of bail of accused Gandharab Singh an under trial prisoner.
In the bail application a medical certificate of a Chandigarh Hospital was produced in the court in which it was certified that wife of the accused had sustained injury and she stood admitted to the hospital at Chandigarh.
The prosecution disputed the genuineness of the certificate and filed an application before the trial court seeking registration of a case against the persons involved in submissions and preparation of the fake certificate.
On the direction of the court, the Crime Branch Jammu registered a case and started investigation.
In the approved for reporting judgement Justice YP Nargotra after hearing senior advocate MA Goni with advocate DS Chouhan appearing for the petitioner and advocate Sunil Sethi and advcoate AS Dogra observed that the question of taking cognizance upon any of such offences does not arise at this stage.
The case has been registered against the accused petitioner for commission of various offences.
The offences alleged to have been committed are yet to be investigated.
There is nothing in section 195 or 476 to indicate that investigation by the police is barred.
There is no bar in law for sending a case to the police for registration of an FIR and investigation into the offences which are alleged to have been committed by a person in relation to the proceedings pending before the court.
Therefore there is no merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed, the court held.
