news details |
|
|
| 2 JDA employees get 2 years in prison in corruption case | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Jan 8: Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Jammu, A K Koul today awarded two years rigorous imprisonment to JDA's then senior assistant Sita Ram and helper Kuldeep Kumar in a corruption case.
According to the VOJ case, an application was submitted to JDA by one Sat Paul Sharma on June 15, 1994 for allotment of a plot of land in Digiana Housing Colony. His request fructified and plot No 63, measuring 20 x 40 ft, was allotted to him in the housing colony vide JDA letter No JDA/EWS/DC-228/63 on December 13, 1985 (mark-SP/2). The allottee deposited an amount of Rs 1000 vide GR No 000001 on July 8, 1984 as part premium and he was required to pay a further premium of Rs 2500. In response to the allotment order issued to him, he later submitted a bank draft of Rs 2500 towards the remaining premium vide his letter dated January 15, 1986 (Ext-P6/2).
Notwithstanding the fulfilment of condition of payment of premium of Rs 2500, the possession of the allotted plot was not handed over to him on account of some legal dispute and so in lieu of the plot No 63 allotted to him in Digiana Housing Colony, plot No 5, measuring 16.6 x 30 ft, in phase-IV of Housing Colony, Paloura, was allotted to him vide order No JDA/DC-Paloura/678 on December 11, 1995 at a premium of Rs 9900. Since he had already deposited Rs 3500 as premium for a plot at Digiana, which was lying with JDA and a further sum of Rs 3205 was added to the premium so deposited by the allottee as interest which had accrued on deposited amount and accordingly the premium plus interest (Rs 3500+3205) was set off against the total premium payable by him and so he was required to deposit Rs 3195 (9900-6705) only within 30 days. He could not do so, consequently the possession of the plot could not be handed over to him.
After hearing the two sides, the judge observed that the accused in this case worked on their nefarious plan for some time and did everything at their command to take it to its logical end but ultimately they failed to do so, though in the culminating phase but they never thought of the consequences which they may have to face at the end of the day. It is trite that holders of public office are entrusted with certain duties and powers, which duties have to be discharged and powers exercised in the public interest only and any breach thereof results in an abuse to the public office. Any public servant deviating from the path of rectitude runs the risk of losing the public trust to be followed by penal consequences. So, ordinarily the accused do not deserve any sympathy so for as the quantum of punishment is concerned but then there is still a mitigating factor in the sense that one of the accused is around 66 years old and the other is about 45 years. The accused as such deserve a slight leniency while deciding the commensurate punishment to be imposed.
With these observations, the court ordered that each accused would undergo imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs 5000 for each of the offences under sections 468 and 471 of RPC read with section 120-B of RPC. The court also ordered that each of the accused would undergo a further imprisonment of two years and shall pay a fine of Rs 5000 each for the commission of offence under section 5(2) of P C Act. The court clarified that both the sentences would run concurrently. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
