news details |
|
|
| HC refuses to quash FIR against Forest Officer | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Aug 5: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has refused to quash a 2017 Anti-Corruption Bureau FIR registered against Forest Department officer Pankaj Khajuria in an alleged disproportionate-assets case, holding that neither the absence of a preliminary enquiry nor delay in investigation was sufficient to terminate the criminal proceedings.
Justice M.A. Chowdhary dismissed the petition filed by Khajuria under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No. 26/2017, registered at Police Station Anti-Corruption Bureau, formerly Vigilance Organisation Jammu, under Sections 5(1)(e) read with 5(2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act.
The petitioner was serving as a Forester when the FIR was registered and is presently working as an In-charge Range Officer. He claimed that he had been falsely implicated and that all properties standing in his name and in the name of his wife, Varinder Kour, had legitimate and accounted sources.
Khajuria submitted that his wife had been running a cricket-bat manufacturing concern under the name M/S Shails Sports at Govindsar, Kathua, even before their marriage in June 2011.
The ACB, however, alleged that the officer had accumulated movable and immovable assets worth crores of rupees during the check period from 2008 to 2017.
According to the agency, the assets included business concerns M/S Shails Sports, M/S Shakti Sports and M/S Satyoti Sports, three trucks, a Toyota Fortuner, a Swift car, a Bullet motorcycle and substantial deposits in bank accounts.
The investigating agency claimed that its probe had revealed a 348 per cent increase in assets compared with the petitioner’s known sources of income. It further stated that the investigation had been completed and the final report forwarded to the competent authority for grant of prosecution sanction.
Advocate Jagpaul Singh, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the FIR was liable to be quashed as no preliminary enquiry had been conducted before its registration. He further contended that the investigation had remained pending for more than nine years, violating the petitioner’s fundamental right to a speedy investigation and trial.
Additional Advocate General Raman Sharma, assisted by Advocate Saliqa Sheikh, opposed the petition and submitted that a preliminary enquiry was not mandatory where the information available with the agency disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence.
The Government counsel attributed the delay to the voluminous nature of the financial record, verification of various bank accounts, business establishments, vehicles and other assets, besides changes of investigating officers owing to administrative transfers.
The High Court held that a preliminary enquiry in corruption cases may be desirable but is not an indispensable legal requirement in every case.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench judgment in Lalita Kumari versus Government of Uttar Pradesh, the Court observed that registration of an FIR is mandatory where the information received discloses the commission of a cognizable offence.
The Court also relied upon subsequent Supreme Court rulings holding that a preliminary enquiry may be dispensed with where a detailed source report prima facie discloses a cognizable offence.
Justice Chowdhary observed that the information received by the ACB through official channels indicated that the petitioner had allegedly acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. Therefore, registration of the FIR could not be termed illegal merely because it was not preceded by a formal preliminary enquiry.
The Court further held that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court cannot examine the correctness or sufficiency of the evidence collected during investigation.
On the question of delay, the Court acknowledged that the right to speedy investigation and trial forms part of Article 21 of the Constitution. It, however, ruled that mere passage of time does not automatically entitle an accused to quashing of an FIR.
The investigation involved scrutiny of financial records, bank accounts, vehicles, movable and immovable properties and business concerns accumulated over a long check period, the Court noted.
It further observed that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any specific prejudice caused to his defence solely because of the time taken in completing the investigation.
Holding that the correctness of the ACB’s findings and the petitioner’s explanation regarding the source of the assets were matters to be tested by the Trial Court, the High Court dismissed the petition along with the connected applications.
The interim directions, if any, were vacated and the ACB was granted liberty to proceed further in accordance with law after obtaining the requisite sanction from the competent authority. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
