Court directs ACB for further investigation

Misappropriation of cement & steel

Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Jan 17: Additional Sessions Judge Anticorruption Kathua Kamlesh Pandit today directed Anti-Corruption Bureau Jammu for further investigation in FIR No 20/2012 registered under Prevention of Corruption Act and different sections of RPC against the then BDO and Storekeeper for misappropriation of cement and steel.
As per the Anti-Corruption Bureau, misappropriation to the tune of Rs 9,21,735 has taken place in the stock of cement and steel of Block Barnoti by making false/duplicate entries in stock issuance register and by fudging the actual stock position.
The storekeeper by making false and duplicate entries in the stock issuance record and by fudging of actual stock position misappropriated 4364 bags of cement and 12.97 quintals steel amounting to Rs 9,21,735 during the period 2002-2007. The quantity was shown issued for undertaking different works under various departmental schemes whereas it was not actually issued.
The verification further revealed that on the basis of departmental assessment made by then ACD Kathua, a recovery of Rs 3,27,918 was made in the month of March 2006 from storekeeper Mohinder Singh. Consequently, FIR was registered.
During the course of further investigation, original work files were requisitioned and out of 71 work files the list of which was provided to the BDO Office Barnoti, only 07 work files (200405) were traced by the concerned department and handed over to concerned IO which were also seized.
After hearing both the sides, the court observed, “the allegations against the main accused namely Mohinder Singh are that he during his tenure/period between April 2001 to March 2006, committed the misappropriation of 4364 cement bags and 12.97 quintal of steel amounting to Rs.9,21,735/- and the Dr Bharat Bhushan, who was BDO of the Block Barnoti, under whose supervision Mohinder Singh was working, facilitated and allowed him to fabricate the record by authenticating fake/double entry in the concerned register”.
“The allegations against Dr Bharat Bhushan are generalized as he had the tenure as BDO Barnoti between 05-10-2002 to 19-06-2004, so it is was impossible and impractical that he facilitated the misappropriation and criminal misconduct beyond his tenure. While as during the tenure of Mohinder Singh there were two more BDOs who had discharged their duties during the check period of main accused person but those BDOs namely P S Rathore and Dr Sunil Sharma have not been implicated but cited as witnesses for the reason that they were instrumental in highlighting the mischief of storekeeper but no such document is on record that these two left out BDOs have written to the higher authorities about the pilferage in the Government stock as BDO Barnoti but the letter dated 24-02-2006 which is part of the record on the basis of which recovery of Rs.3,27,980/- was recovered from Mohinder Singh suggest that the letter was issued by the ACD Kathua on the directions by the then Minister for Rural Development and Panchayati Raj”, the court observed.
“In the letter another person designated as Senior Assistant of the same BDO office Barnoti was also shown as defaulter of 1076 cement bags but prosecution is silent on the second defaulter. It appears that the 6 Investigating Officers who conducted the investigation, did not bother to go deep into the surfaced facts in a professional way but they believed the statements of left out BDOs”, the court said.
“Prosecution while coming into the conclusion that there were fake/double entry of the challan in the stock issuance register, while going through the other part of the challan/charge sheet suggest that duplicate GRs were printed by the main accused storekeeper, which alleged fact has been also highlighted by prosecution witnesses namely Amarjeet Singh, Sham Lal Verma and Manish Jandiyal in their statements too but the so called six professional Investigating Officers have not ruled out the same, thus giving rights to reasonable suspicion regarding the investigation”, the court said.
“The prosecution highlighted the non-cooperation of the storekeeper but never resorted to the procedure of search and seizure provided under Criminal Procedure Code. Also as per the record, there are proper indents with respect to most of the alleged fake/double entry challans but no investigation in this regard was conducted with respect to the concerned persons who made requisitions and approvals of the indents”, the court said.
“The charge sheet does not disclose the complete factual position vis-a-vis complicity of the accused and other persons if any, into the misadventure. Consequently the charge sheet is, ordered to be returned for further investigation/clarification”, the court ordered.