Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, June 21: Taking serious note of missing of statement with challan, Additional Sessions Judge Anticorruption Doda Amarjeet Singh Langeh has directed Director Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) to enquire as to why the statements of witnesses were not made part of challan by the investigating officer concerned, fix the responsibility for the lapse and proceed against errant investigator according to law.
Moreover, the Director ACB has been directed to submit a detailed report in this regard by next date of hearing without fail. In the meanwhile, it shall also be ensured that the statements of witnesses which according to one of investigator present today stand submitted in the court of Special Judge Anticorruption Jammu – be also caused to be produced before this court in consonance with law by next date of hearing, the Additional Sessions Judge Anticorruption Doda directed.
This significant order was passed when court was hearing FIR No. 21 of 2007 registered with Police Station Vigilance organization Jammu in the year 2007 on charge/discharge. After completion of investigation, challan was presented on 09.04.2015 seeking trial of the accused for offences under Sections 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of J&K PC Act.
It is since then the matter is pending for arguments on charge/discharge. On 20.01.2013, when the matter was being argued – it emerged that statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of CrPC were not made part of challan at the time of its presentation. A detailed order was passed on said date which read: “Let therefore, in the first place, Investigating Officer of the case be put on notice to explain/clarify his position by or before next date of hearing so that appropriate orders can follow up thereafter. Accordingly, the office is directed to issue notice to the Investigating Officer to be served upon him through the Senior Superintendent of Vigilance concerned. Copy of order shall also go to the Investigating Officer”.
When the matter was taken-up today, Additional Sessions Judge Anticorruption Doda observed, “as a follow up of earlier order one of the investigating officers namely Rajesh Sandal, Superintendent of Police has caused appearance and his version has been recorded in the form of statement and made part of file”.
“According to this Investigating Officer, he conducted initial investigation in the case and recorded statements of nine witnesses under Section 161 of CrPC which were subsequently submitted in the court of Special Judge Anticorruption Jammu through SSP Vigilance. According to this Investigating Officer, he was subsequently transferred and investigation was handed over to Inspector V P Singh who subsequently expired. Thereafter, according to the Investigating Officer present – investigation was entrusted to Inspector Manjeet Singh. Interestingly, the name of Inspector Manjeet Singh does not figure in the list of witnesses in the challan”, the court observed.
“According to this Investigating Officer – only the Investigating Officer who presented the challan can explain as to why the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of CrPC were not made part of challan. Inevitably, the circumstances outlined have not only scuttled progress in the case but the egregious lapses ought to have swirled the higher ups in what is now called the Anti Corruption Bureau”, the court said.
“For an investigator not to make statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of CrPC part of challan is fraught with potentially serious consequences. Can a challan be said to be complete sans statements of witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.PC in as serious a case as one under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. There is a need to go to the bottom of these lapses”, the court said while directing Director ACB to enquire into the matter and fix responsibility.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
