Court rejects closure report, directs further investigation

Corruption case against XEn, others

Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Jan 30: Additional Sessions Judge Anticorruption Doda Amarjeet Singh Langeh today rejected the closure report filed by Vigilance Organization Jammu (now ACB) in corruption case against the officers/officials of Rural Development Department, Doda and directed further investigation.
The closure report was filed against the then Block Development Officers namely Abdul Karim Tantray and Akthar Hussain Qazi, the then Executive Engineer REW Doda namely Kewal Krishan Gorkha , the then AEE namely Manzoor Ahmed Mir, the then Jr. Engineers namely Surinder Manhas, Mukesh Sharma, Musrat Parvaiz Naik and some Village Level Workers.
While rejecting the closure report, the court observed, “four Investigating Officers have investigated the case in hand. Present closure report has been filed by DySP Shiv Kumar. All that seems to have been done during the 2nd phase of investigation by investigating agency is that statements of some witnesses were recorded and a conclusion seems to have been goaded that construction work with regard to pond was carried out but same was damaged/demolished by villagers”.
“No further details outlined. Similarly, with regard to construction of graveyard, Investigating Officer alludes to some donation and no further details. And then with regard to execution of work of path/drain, report says that its nomenclature was changed by department on insistence of public”, the court said, adding “nothing more except this delightfully vague observation. Ironically enough, investigating agency has not drawn its attention in the closure report, on fraudulent drawal of money in the name of deceased persons and on withdrawal of money by the concerned officials on fake job cards of Government employees”.
“However, an amount of Rs 1,19,982 is said to have been recovered from some officers/officials of the department without further detail seemingly to over-simplify allegations of serious indictment of officials concerned”, the court said, adding “Investigating Officers seem to have lost focus from real subject matter of investigation and have thus played with ducks and drakes to conclude that its case of commission of no-offences”.
“The standard of investigation adopted in FIR in question, if I may say so with restraint, is far below that of a preliminary verification before registration of an FIR in vigilance cases. Investigation conducted shows, either total reluctance on the part of Investigating Officers to un-ravel the truth or pure lack of modicum knowledge of law needed by Investigating Officers to investigate a criminal case pertaining to one under Prevention of Corruption Act”, the court said.
With these observations, the Court rejected the closure report and directed further investigation in accordance with law.