Early Times Report
Jammu, Nov 8: Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Jammu, Sanjeev Gupta has acquitted six cops who were facing trial in a corruption case for the past 11 years there were many lacunae in the police case.
The cops included Pardeep Kumar, Mohammad Yousuf, Mohinder Singh, Narinder Kumar, Ram Lal and Onkar Nath.
In 2005, the accused were posted in different offices of police establishment in Jammu. Pardeep, a Head Constable, was incharge of verification branch at the district police office, Jammu, (DPO), Yousuf was posted in the OSI branch at DPO as incharge of deploying SPOs, Mohinder in the office of IGP, Jammu, Narinder at ZPHQ, Jammu, and Ram Lal and Onkar Nath, both SPOs, at RPHQ, Jammu.
On September 14, 2005, Bodh Raj posted as office Sub-Inspector at DPO, Jammu, received a telephonic information from DPL, Jammu, to the effect that Order Book No 1524 dated September 8, 2005 relating to appointment orders of Koshal Sharma, Lucky Kumar and Darshan Lal as SPOs issued by DPO were forged as belt No 515/SPO-J allotted to Koshal was already allotted to Krishan Kumar, son of Kewal Krishan of Gho Manhasan, who was posted at police station, Bakshi Nagar.
After verification of the order, a written report was sent to then SSP, Jammu, for registration of FIR against the accused, whose complicity surfaced during the preliminary enquiry conducted by Nasir Ahmed, then DSP (DAR), Jammu, in the preparation of fake appointment orders of the above mentioned SPOs in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy hatched between them on the basis of which the forged order No 1524 purportedly issued by then SSP, Jammu, after fabricating his signature over the order for their engagement in police department against an illegal consideration.
After the registration of FIR by the SHO of Pacca Danga police station on the written direction of SSP, Jammu, vide his letter dated September 17, 2005, and after completion of investigation, the challan was presented.
The court, after hearing both the sides, observed that there were serious lacunae in the prosecution case. "The oral evidence is short of proving the guilt against the accused and the documentary evidence is either inadmissible or irrelevant. Therefore, it would not be safe to fasten criminal liability on the accused on the basis of such evidence, meaning thereby that prosecution has miserably failed not only to prove its case against the accused with regard to the offences under Prevention of Corruption Act but also other offences with which they have been charged," the court said.
"Accordingly, the prosecution case is dismissed and the accused are acquitted," the court directed. (JNF) |
