Early Times Report
JAMMU, Mar 8: In the spurious drug scam, special judge, anti-corruption, Jammu, A K Koul today directed crime branch (CB) to seek a sanction for prosecution of Lotika Khajuria, deputy drug controller, Jammu, who was a member of purchase committee-II.
The court held the view that there was sufficient evidence on record which revealed her involvement in the scam like other members of the purchase committee, who had been arraigned as accused, and it needed not be re-stated that the accused could not be selectively arrayed or left out, when they were similarly placed.
"The IO had recommended departmental action against members of the verification boards but the justification for doing so does not appear to be plausible. So, it is required of investigating agency to identify the members of verification boards who were supposed to check the quality, efficiency and purity of the drugs supplied after approval of rate contract. The agency will also look into the fact as to how the drug was supplied without proper tests and who under law was having an obligation to do so. After doing the needful, IO would submit a further investigation report in which details of all these facts are found," the judge ordered.
He said the agency was also required to collect reports from the concerned laboratories and experts where samples and hard discs were sent and workout the effect thereof on the conclusions already arrived at.
He said after conducting further investigation, CB would submit investigation report to the court within two months positively. "Any record required by the agency to carry out further investigation may be provided to IO against proper receipt. The question of charge/discharge and other ancillary matters can only be considered after the further investigation report is submitted by IO. Nothing stated herein shall cause a prejudice to anyone who is in the array of accused or may be arrayed subsequently after consideration of further investigation report," he added.
The judge said even as CB had taken enough time to conclude investigation, the exercise though bonafide, appeared to be incomplete.
"The purpose of investigation as we understand is to bring facts to light fairly and honestly, so that the culprit, if any, is brought to justice but in this case what appears to be staring at us is that IO has, in my view, ignored certain important aspects which have been noticed. The initial and further investigation reports, when read in the light of oral as well as documentary evidence produced in support of the charge sheet, do to some extent lend credence to the contention of accused No 13 that it is fit case for further investigation. I say so for many reasons. In the first charge sheet IO has unambiguously made himself clear to the extent that, among other members of purchase committee, Lotika is a particeps criminis with other accused and since she was in active service, as on the date of conclusion of investigation, so IO in his first charge sheet says that sanction for her prosecution and that of other purchase committee members, who were still in active service, would be obtained and a supplementary charge sheet shall be submitted wherein she along with other accused in service would be arraigned as accused but while seeking sanction from the government, CB is silent about Lotika. While submitting the supplementary charge sheet, IO probably became conscious of his lapse and hence back tracked and stated that she has been given a benefit under section 169 of CrPC on the ground that she was neither a party to evaluation of technical bids nor had conducted any scrutiny of documents, as such, no credible evidence regarding her involvement came forth. I would like to ask IO that when he framed final report, he found her involved, but while filing the supplementary charge sheet, he found her innocent. Does IO has some divine attribute to assess the culpability or innocence of an individual without any logical basis and without going through the process of law? It appears IO has erred. I do not want to attribute any motive to him because I have no reason to do so but certainly I would like to point out that he has failed to do what he was ordinarily required to do. Lotika was a member of purchase committee-II. As per the record available, she has attended the meeting of the purchase committee-II on May 15, 2012," the judge said. (JNF) |
