Wrongful loss to exchequer
Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Apr 20: Additional Sessions Judge Anticorruption Doda Amarjeet Singh Langeh today took serious note of slow pace of investigation by Anticorruption Bureau and observed that the circumstances warrant serious indulgence of supervisory officers in hierarchy of investigating agency so that investigation can proceed expeditiously to logical conclusion.
The observation has been made in a pre-arrest bail application filed by Executive Engineer Abdul Wahid Zargar. When the bail application came-up for hearing, Additional Sessions Judge Anticorruption Doda Amarjeet Singh Langeh observed, “pursuant to order passed on 13.04.2023, investigating officer caused appearance along with case diary, which is returned to him in the open court after perusal”.
“It needs no brainer to note that an application for grant of anticipatory bail in a case pertaining to offences under Prevention of Corruption Act can neither be offered on mere asking nor the same can be denied in a cavalier manner without considering relevant factors including gravity of allegations and evidence collected during investigation”, the court said, adding “it is in this context that certain observations are needed to be made in the application in hand so that investigating agency not only takes note thereof but also indulges in follow-up action where after the matter can be disposed off on merit”.
Court further observed, “examination of relevant record would show that process of verification of allegations was initiated on a complaint filed by complainant with Vigilance Organization, Jammu on 14.03.2016 and inquiry seems to have been completed in the year 2022 and finally, instant FIR was registered on 04.04.2022”.
On verification of allegations alleged in the complaint, it surfaced that petitioner, the then Executive Engineer (now retired) and one Javed Iqbal Sheikh , the then Head Draftsman in Hydraulic Division Kishtwar allegedly prepared forged bills on exorbitant rates and used the same as genuine and caused wrongful loss to State Exchequer and wrongful gain of Rs 4,95889 to themselves and resultantly, therefore, FIR No. 2/2022 for offences 5(1)(d) read with Sec 5(2) J&K PC. Act and Sections 465,471,120-B of IPC was registered and investigation started.
“Investigation also unveils that petitioner remained posted as Executive Engineer in Hydraulic Division Kishtwar during the period 2011 to 2015. During the tenure of petitioner, 48 works were executed, out of which, only 21 works could be indentified ever since investigation started. About allegedly forgery of bills, investigation does not reveal anything and is still going on”, the court said.
“In a case where verification of allegations took six years and thereafter, investigation has taken up one year and still the chief allegations of forgery of bills, non-execution of work on ground and loss to State Exchequer as alleged, could not register any noteworthy progress- is something which cannot be appreciated”, court said, adding “while it is true that no inflexible guidelines and rigid principle can be formulated for uniform application for speedy investigation, yet it (investigation) must not be lethargic, lackadaisical, staggering and palpably tardy”.
“Crucially also, the attention of investigating agency, till date, does not seem to have been directed towards other accused in the case namely Javed Iqbal, the then Head Draftsman in Hydraulic Division Kishtwar. Prolonged period of investigation, on one hand serves as ever lurking mental stress and fear psychosis to an accused, same on the other hand has deleterious impact on the quality of investigation”, the court said, adding “these are the circumstances which warrant serious indulgence of supervisory officers in hierarchy of investigating agency so that investigation can proceed expeditiously to logical conclusion”.
Accordingly, court directed investigating agency to come with latest progress registered by next date of hearing in the case so that after considering all relevant aspects, this application can be disposed off on merits.
“It would be in the fitness of things if investigating agency also pointedly brings up as to in which way custodial interrogation of petitioner is deemed appropriate by it and why it is in-explicably reluctant to associate other co-accused with investigation as on date”, the court added.
Follow our WhatsApp channel