Excelsior Correspondent
SRINAGAR, Apr 3: High Court directed the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) to complete the investigation in case of acquiring disproportionate assets by Revenue official within the period as prescribed by the trial court against the accused-official.
Justice Rajnesh Oswal dismissed the plea of one Ghulam Hassan Sofi initially appointed as Pathwari seeking quashing of order of Special Judge Anti-Corruption Srinagar whereby Senior Superintendent of Police ACB was directed to further investigate the offences committed by the accused-official under Prevention of Corruption Act.
There is no merit in the present petition, as such, the same is dismissed. The SSP VOK Srinagar (now ACB) is directed to complete the further investigation of the case within a period as prescribed by the trial court in its order dated 10th April 2017″, Justice Oswal directed.
The ACB has charge sheeted the accused-official for commission of offence under section 5 (2) PC Act read with 109 RPC and the other accused on the ground that the petitioner-Sofi is in possession of disproportionate assets to the extent of Rs.67,88,189.
It is further stated in the charge sheet that the petitioner was appointed as a Patwari in the year 1974 and was posted in Rakhs and Farms Department and served there for about a decade and later on was transferred to the Revenue Department District Budgam.
The check period in the case of the petitioner has been fixed from 1986 to 2006. During this whole period, the total income of the petitioner was Rs 13, 72,324 and expenditure during check period has been considered as Rs 5,96,921, however, the income at the beginning of the check period of the petitioner was Rs 3,53,816. The prosecution has determined the total value of the assets acquired by the petitioner during the check period as Rs 79, 17, 408.
The further investigation was directed by the trial court as the investigating officer had not conducted any investigation as to whether any permission had been taken by the accused being a public-servant from the Government or the competent authority for the acquisition of these properties.
The trial court, Justice Oswal recorded, has given the cogent reasons while ordering the further investigation and from the perusal of the order impugned. Court after perusal of the order of trial court said, it is revealed that the petitioner had raised these issues during the course of his arguments on charge and discharge. “So, there is no substance that the petitioner was not heard on the said issue once the petitioner has raised the issue, those pointed towards the defective investigation conducted by the investigating officer, the trial court was well within the power to order further investigation”, Court added.
Follow our WhatsApp channel