JAMMU, Aug 13: Special Judge Anticorruption Udhampur SC Katal has framed charges against Shabir Ahmed Magray, son of Bashir Ahmed Magray of Reasi, the then TSO of CA&PD Department Reasi in Disproportionate Assets case.
The case was the outcome of an open verification conducted into the allegations of raising disproportionate assets by Magrey. During verification, it was found that Magrey is in possession of a double storey building on a plot of 8 Kanals at Trintha valuing about Rs 60 lakh, one double storey building over one kanal of land under Khasra No.22 situated at Sidhra Jammu valuing about Rs 40 lakh, a piece of land measuring 8 kanals and 12 marlas under Khasra No.64 situated at Reasi valuing Rs 20,000, land measuring 12 ½ marlas purchased vide mutation No.259 at Reasi valuing Rs 15,000, land at Batote valuing Rs 84,000, Vehicle Car-i10 bearing No.0061-JK20 valuing Rs 4 lakh and steel fabrication shop at Trintha, Reasi valuing Rs 2 lakh in his name and in the name of his wife.
During investigation, it was also established that the accused in his official capacity as then TSO CA&PD Reasi (now FCS&CA Department) had acquired the moveable and immoveable assets by ill gotten money through corrupt practices and the value of the assets held by him and in the name of family members is Rs 45,16,972.91 which is disproportionate to his known source of income.
After hearing APP Himanshu Parkash for the ACB, Special Judge Anticorruption observed, “it is mentioned in the charge sheet that the questioner was served upon the accused and the accused has submitted his reply which is not found satisfactory by the Investigating Officer”.
“Therefore, at this stage it cannot be presumed that accused was not given opportunity to explain/account for assets. In the course of arguments the defence counsel has also submitted that the wife of the accused had purchased the land to the tune of Rs 1,74,000 and the said land was sold in the year 2011 at exhorbitant rates to one Sanjay Mehta that income to the tune of Rs 6,33,000- has not been taken into consideration”, the court said.
“The defence counsel has also pointed out that investment in the wife’s business to the tune of Rs 20,47,441 has been wrongly added in the expenditure of the accused which was actually the expenditure having been incurred by wife in her business but from the charge sheet it reveals that the income of the wife from her business was found nil for financial year 2005-2006 to 2008-09 because no balance sheet of the proprietary business was reflected by the wife of the accused in the annual return filed by her”, the court said.
“Therefore, the grass income of wife of the accused for the assessment year 2006-07 to 2009-10 has not been considered to be genuine for calculation of their income. Only, the grass income of the assessment year 2010-11 to assessment year 2013-14 has been taken into consideration. The Investigating Officer has also taken note of the alleged sublet work as contractor but the income derived from that work has also been taken into account in the financial year 2011-12”, the court further said.
“Even, if the expenditure as shown to the tune of Rs 20,47,441 as investment in wife’s business is excluded from the expenditure even then the disproportionate assets would be more than 30%”, the Judge said, adding “I find that prima facie commission of offence u/s 5(1) (e) r/w 5 (2) PC Act. 2006 is disclosed against the accused person as such charges have been framed accordingly”, the Judge said.