news details |
|
|
| HC refuse to quash FIR against BJP councilor, her husband in corruption case | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Mar 20: Justice Sanjay Dhar of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court refused to quash FIR against Joyti Devi Ex-JMC Councilor of BJP and her husband Sham Lal who were booked by the ACB in corruption case.
According to the ACB that a complaint received in writing wherein the complainant stated that he is a Contractor by profession and have been allotted contract work for upgradation of the open area along the main road near Master Mind Classes by Pre-cast of paver tiles and upgradation of open area along main road near easy day at Ward No. 53Trikuta Nagar, Jammu.
The complainant further stated that he has completed construction of allotted work and final payment of the same is pending with JMC Division IV. For making final payment there is a requirement of mulba clearance certificate from the concerned Corporator, for which complainant approached the Corporator of Ward No. 53 namely Jyoti Devi who demanded an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as bribe for issuance of mulba clearance certificate of the works done by him and she asked the complainant to contact her husband for payment of bribe money. He further stated that he did not want to pay the bribe and requested for taking necessary action against them.
Upon receiving the complaint allegations of the complaint were got verified. Consequently a case FIR No. 10/2022 P/S ACB-J U/s 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and 120-B IPC was registered at PS ACB-Jammu.
A trap team was constituted where upon the accused Sham Lal was caught red handed while demanding and accepting bribe of Rs. 10,000/- on behalf of his wife Jyoti Devi Corporator of Ward No. 53 from the complainant. Both the accused persons were taken into custody on the spot.
Justice Sanjay Dhar after hearing both the sides observed that from the aforesaid material on record, that has been assembled by the investigating agency during investigation of the case, the allegations made in the impugned FIR against the petitioners get fully substantiated. Thus, it cannot be stated that the allegations made in the impugned FIR against the petitioners are frivolous or vexatious as has been claimed by the petitioners.
Court further observed that so far as the contention of counsel for the petitioners that there was no requirement of Malba Clearance Certificate for release of the payment in favour of the complainant is concerned, the same does not have bearing on the instant case, because the fact of the matter remains that petitioner No. 2 was a Corporator at the relevant time and in that capacity she was in a position to issue the Malba Clearance Certificate. Whether or not production of such a certificate was mandatory for release of the payment is of no consequence. Once it is shown that petitioner No.2 was in a position to issue such a certificate and for issuance of the said certificate she had demanded and accepted the bribe amount through her husband-petitioner No 1, the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, is made out.
For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any ground to quash the impugned FIR and the proceedings emanating there from, Court ordered.
—JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
