news details |
|
|
| Girdawar, others acquitted as prosecution fails to prove case | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Apr 2: Following the prosecution failure to prove the case, special judge, anti-corruption, Jammu, A K Koul has acquitted a girdawar and others.
The complaint's allegation is that adjacent to his and others' land, which falls under khasra No 579 at Partapkote in Birpur, Samba, 94 kanals of state land has been encroached upon by accused No 1 in connivance with patwari and other revenue staff. After encroachment, he fenced the land, raised a shed on it and clandestinely started its sale, he alleged. On the basis of this complaint, a preliminary verification was conducted and during which it was found that Jamal Din, who was the then Girdawar of Halqa Bari Brahmana, with malafide intention conferred undue benefit on the accused Narinder Singh, Pritam Singh, Promod Singh and Ashok Singh by recording their names in the khasra girdawari in respect of state land measuring 215 kanals under khasra No 1845/1734.
The verification officer concluded that since accused No 5, even though a girdawar, was not competent to record girdawari of state land in favour of the beneficiaries. So, it was a blatant misuse of his official position by accused No 5. On the basis of preliminary verification, a case was registered and investigation was started. After investigation, the investigating agency concluded that 215 kanals of state land, which adjoins the land under khasra No 579, was illegally encroached upon by accused 1 to 4, and then deputy commissioner, Jammu, vide his office order No DCJAD/MF/GDS/06-07/624-632 of October 7, 2006 had dispossessed all these persons of the state land which was then allotted to JDA. Concluding investigation, the IOs found that accused No 5, then girdawar, had abused his official position and conferred undue benefit on other accused by making illegal entry in the revenue record in their names in respect of the state land under khasra No 1845/1734 min measuring 215 kanals. The complicity of all the accused in the commission of offences was established.
The court, after hearing the two sides, observed that the conclusion that "emerges from the discussion is that the prosecution case has so many seriously doubtful patches. The oral evidence is short of proving the guilt against the accused and the documentary evidence is either inadmissible or irrelevant. That being so, it would not be safe to record a conviction on the basis of a very weak evidence. The investigation itself appears to be misdirected and obviously the conclusion based on that investigation would also be faulty. Normally defective investigation should not be a reason to reject a version but then it may be hazardous to base a conviction on the basis of totally misdirected investigation and faulty prosecution.
This leaves the court with no option but to dismiss the case which is accordingly dismissed and the accused are acquitted". (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
