Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, May 13: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, while deciding an appeal in corruption case, has set-aside the conviction and sentence awarded by the Anticorruption Court and acquitted one Nizam Din, who was then store-keeper.
The appeal was directed against judgment dated 28.01.2005 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (Special Judge Anti Corruption, Rajouri ,Poonch and Doda District) whereby the appellant has been convicted of offences under Sections 467/409 RPC and Section 5(2) of J&K PC Act and sentenced to undergone simple imprisonment for a period of four years under Section 467 RPC, simple imprisonment of four years under Section 409 RPC and simple imprisonment for a period of three years under Section 5(2) of J&K P.C Act for misappropriation of food grains.
Justice Sanjay Dhar
After hearing Advocate Koushal Parihar for the appellant whereas Senior AAG Monika Kohli for the UT, Justice Sanjay Dhar observed, “it is clear that each material circumstance appearing in the evidence against an accused has to be put to him specifically, distinctly and separately and if it is not done, it amounts to serious irregularity vitiating the trial, provided it is shown that the accused was prejudiced”.
“It is also clear that non examination of an accused under Section 342 J&K CrPC is an irregularity which may in normal circumstances be cured by remanding the case to the trial court for recording fresh statement of the accused, but if there is a long passage of time from the date of incident, the defect becomes incurable”, High Court said, adding “the trial court has placed reliance upon the statement of prosecution witness Manzoor Ali without giving the appellant an opportunity to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing therein”.
“This has caused a grave prejudice to the appellant. Thus, a grave irregularity has been committed by the trial court by relying upon the statement of Manzoor Ali”, High Court said, adding “the trial court has landed itself into grave illegality by recording the conviction against the appellant on the basis of opinion of the handwriting expert despite being alive to the legal position that unless it is proved that admitted signatures pertain to a particular person, the opinion of handwriting expert on the basis of those admitted signatures cannot be relied upon”.
“The trial court, while applying the legal position in the case of other transactions, which were subject matter of the challan, has, without any cogent reason, taken a different view and placed reliance upon the alleged admitted signatures of the appellant without actual proof of the fact that those signatures pertain to him. Thus, the very basis of the impugned judgment passed by the trial court is flawed”, High Court said.
“Thus, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court against the appellant cannot be sustained and as such, the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment passed by the trial court is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges”, High Court ordered.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
