news details |
|
|
| Court awards 2 years RI to naib-tehsildar | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Feb 10: Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Jammu, A K Koul today awarded 2 years rigorous imprisonment to then naib-tehsildar Mohammad Asghar Bhat, besides imposing a fine of Rs 5,000 on him.
According to the crime branch case, the accused allegedly made the complainant to believe that he could manage inclusion of his name in the revenue records in respect of his land and house situated under khasra No 324 min provided he paid him Rs 20,000 as fee. After receiving money, the accused provided him three documents reflecting the name of complainant in the record, but these were later found to be fake.
As per the chargesheet, the accused even admitted before the IO that he had prepared the false documents. This led the IO to conclude that the accused had abused his official position and had cheated the complainant by giving him false documents in lieu of Rs 20,000 when he was neither posted in the area where the complainant's house was situated nor was he having competence to issue such documents.
It was also found that the seal used by accused for preparation of false documents was later destroyed by him. Accordingly, the investigation culminated in this charge sheet under sections 420, 467, 468, 201 of RPC read with section 5 (2) of P C Act.
The judge, after hearing both the sides, observed that the accused, being a government employee, was indirectly the custodian of the public record, irrespective of the post he was holding at the relevant time.
He said there could not be any doubt about the fact that the accused had wilfully committed a serious crime and in absence of any mitigating circumstance he did not deserve any sympathy while deciding the quantum of punishment to be awarded to him but then there was a mitigating factor which "weighs in favour of accused because he is sixty years old and have a family to support. A harsh sentence may not only effect his service if any left but would also expose his family to starvation for the fault which has been committed by the accused only. Punishment has a purpose of reformation as well and if the accused even at this stage of life is reformed by a lesser punishment we would be justified in saying that the punishment has served the purpose and ordinarily we have no reason to say that the punishment of lesser magnitude may not serve the purpose of reformation of accused. Apart from what has been stated the accused has faced a huge trauma already because the instant case was registered about eight years back and one can very well understand the agony of a person who faces investigation and trial for eight long years and gets convicted thereafter.
That being the factual aspect of the matter I believe that keeping in view the nature of the crime committed by the accused, his age, the period of his suffering , he deserves a lenient view in so far as quantum of punishment is concerned".
With these observations, the court sentenced him to imprisonment for a period of two years for each of the offences under sections 467 and 468 of RPC. A fine of Rs 5,000 was also imposed on him. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
