Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Mar 8: Special Judge Anti-corruption Jammu, A K Koul has directed the Crime Branch to conduct further investigation in the much-publicized spurious drugs scam.
The court also directed the Crime Branch to seek sanction for prosecution of Lotika Khajuria, Deputy Drug Controller Jammu, who was member of Purchase Committee-II. “There is sufficient evidence on record which reveals her involvement like other members of the Purchase Committee, who have been arrayed as accused”, the court said, adding “it need not be re-stated that accused cannot be selectively arrayed or left out, when they are similarly placed”.
“The Investigating Officer has recommended departmental action against members of the verification boards but the justification for doing so does not appear to be plausible. So the investigating agency is required to identify the members of the verification boards who were supposed to check the quality, efficiency, purity etc of the drug supplied after the approval of rate contract”, the court said, adding “the investigating agency shall also look into the fact as to how was the drug supplied without proper tests and who under law was having an obligation to do so. After doing the needful the Investigating Officer shall submit a further investigation report”.
The court further said, “investigating agency is also required to collect all the reports from concerned laboratories/ experts where they have sent the samples/hard disc etc and workout the effect thereof on the conclusions already arrived at”, adding “after further investigation the Crime Branch will submit a further report within two months positively. Any record required by investigating agency for the sake of carrying out further investigation may be provided to the IO against proper receipt. The question of charge/discharge and other ancillary matters can only be considered after further investigation report is submitted by the IO”.
Special Judge Anticorruption further observed, “after going through the entire record collected by Investigating Officer, one is bound to comment that even though enough of time has been taken by Crime Branch to conclude the investigation yet the exercise though bonafide appears to be incomplete”, adding “the purpose of investigation is to bring facts to the light fairly and honestly, so that the culprit if any, is brought to justice but in this case what appears to be staring at us is that the Investigating Officer has ignored certain important aspects which have been noticed by him during investigation”.
“The initial investigation report and the further investigation report when read in the light of oral as well as documentary evidence produced in support of the charge sheet, to some extent lend credence to the contention of accused No.13, that it is fit case for further investigation”, the court said, adding “in the first charge sheet the Investigating Officer has unambiguously made himself clear to the extent that among other members of Purchase Committee Lotika Khajuria is a particeps criminis with other accused and since she was in active service, as on the date of conclusion of investigation, so the Investigating Officer in his first charge sheet says that sanction for her prosecution and that of other purchase committee members, who were still in active service, would be obtained and a supplementary charge sheet shall be submitted but then while seeking sanction from the Government Crime Branch is silent about Lotika Khajuria”.
“Obviously once sanction was not sought against her there is no sanction granted to her extent. While submitting the supplementary charge sheet, the Investigating Officer probably became conscious of his lapse and has back tracked and stated that she has been given a benefit under Section 169 CrPC on the ground that she was neither a party to checking/evaluation of technical bids nor had conducted any scrutiny of the documents, as such, no credible evidence regarding her involvement came forth”, the court observed, adding when the Investigating Officer framed the final investigation report he found her involved and while filing the supplementary charge sheet he found her innocent.
“Let the Investigating Officer explain did he err while framing the first charge sheet or while preparing the supplementary charge sheet, to the extent of Lotika Khajuria. In one breath he says that Lotika Khajuria is similarly placed as other Purchase Committee members and was so involved in commission of the crime attributed to other committee members and in the same breath he says no evidence came forth against her. Does Investigating Officer have some divine attribute to assess the culpability or innocence of an individual without any logical basis and without going through a process of law? Patently it appears that Investigating Officer has erred”, the court said.
Follow our WhatsApp channel