Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Mar 2: State High Court has refused to quash proceedings in the multi-crore new Jammu township project scam and directed the trial court to conclude the trial within six months.
According to the case, on June 16, 1998 the then Vice Chairman JDA R K Handa wrote to the SHO Police Station Trikuta Nagar mentioning that his signatures were forged on a letter purported to have been written by him to M/s IPPL. Accordingly, a case under Section 420/511 RPC was registered but later the investigation was transferred to the Crime Branch.
During the investigation, it came to fore that JDA with the object of promoting and securing the development of Jammu town in accordance with Master Plan entered into an agreement with M/s IPPL for financing the project (SMR Satellite Township).
The Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd issued bank guarantee for Rs 4.75 crores on July 23, 1997 on the request of VC JDA without adopting proper procedure and examining the genuineness of guarantee formally provided by accused Jayant Bhuta which was not carrying the name of borrower and purpose for which it was given.
After the completion of investigation on January 6, 2010, Crime Branch presented challan in the Court of Special Judge Anticorruption Jammu against Jayant Bhutia, Madan Lal Kalra, Moulvi Iftikar Hussain Ansari, the then Minister for Housing and Urban Development (presently MLA PDP), Dr Amjad Abas Ansari and B Murlidar.
However, B Murlidhar filed a petition before the High Court seeking quashment of the proceedings commenced against him on the ground that he was only the consultant of the company, which had received J&K Bank Guarantee of Rs 475 lakh and had nothing to do with any matter. He further submitted that the bank guarantee could not be encashed as its payment was stopped because of registration of case.
After hearing Senior Advocate M A Goni with Advocate A H Bhat and Senior AAG Gagan Basotra, Justice Mansoor Ahmed Mir observed, “though petitioner was not party at that time the investigating agency has found petitioner’s involvement and trial court has also prima-facie made an opinion against him as such the petition in hand is without any merit. It gains more significance for the reason that order, by virtue of which charge came to be framed against him, is an interlocutory order and cannot be questioned by way of revision”.
“Virtually the petitioner has sought revision under the garb of this petition which is impermissible. It pains me to state that petitioner has delayed the trial for the last three years. In these circumstances, the petition in hand is dismissed with the direction to the trial court to conclude the trial as early as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date copy of the order is made available to it and report compliance”, Justice Mir said.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel