Excelsior Correspondent
Srinagar, Sept 30: The High Court has dismissed the plea of former Director Doordarshan Kendra Srinagar Dr. Rafiq Masoodi challenging the order of sanction for prosecution and the proceedings of trial court against him in FIR registered by Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) for commission of corruption charges.
Masoodi challenged the order of sanction for prosecution dated 20.05.2015, the challan arising out of FIR No.RC-03 (A) of 2013 CBI/ACB, Srinagar, and order dated 07.11.2016 passed by Special Judge, Anticorruption (CBI Cases), Srinagar, whereby charges for offences under Section 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of J&K Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B RPC have been framed against Masoodi.
The facts giving rise to the filing of their petition by Dr. Masoodi are that on the basis of source information FIR No. RC-03 (A) of 2013 for offences under Section 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of J&K PC Act, Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B RPC came to be registered by Police Station, CBI/ACB, Srinagar.
It was alleged in the FIR that Abdul Qayoom Wadera, Deputy Director General (DDG), Doordarshan Kendra (DDK), Srinagar, had entered into a criminal conspiracy with Ghulam Mohi-u-Din, Programme Executive, Doordarshan Kendra, Srinagar, and some unknown persons.
In pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy, they had cheated DDK, Srinagar, while claiming payments amounting to Rs.18.81 lakhs towards 22 fictitious artists stated to have been engaged for production and telecast of four programmes, namely, “Tote Gov Koal”, “Rood Kaya Baqi”, “Ghar Se Bollywood Tak” and “Rum Gayam Sheeshas” on the basis of fake and fictitious documents thereby causing a wrongful loss to the Government exchequer and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves.
On the culmination of the investigation, the competent authority granted sanction to prosecute Masoodi and seven other accused in terms of its order dated 20th of May, 2015, where-after a challan came to be filed against Masoodi and the accused before the Court of Special Judge, Anticorruption (CBI Cases), Srinagar. As per the challan offences Section 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of J&K PC Act, Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B RPC were found established against the accused.
Justice Sanjay Dhar while dismissing the plea of Masoodi said, prima facie, it appears that the petitioner is involved in accord of approval to the four programmes and this has been done by him against the standard norms.
“So, the mere fact that payments in respect of these programmes may have been made after the petitioner had demitted the office, does not absolve him of his acts and omission which he had done when he was at the helm of affair” court said.
Had the petitioner, court added, adhered to the norms of approving the programmes before their actual preparation and insisted upon all the requisite details pertaining to facilities required for these programmes and other details, it would not have been possible for the other accused to commit the crime.
“The petitioner, therefore, appears to be a partner in the crime. There is also material on record in the shape of statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC to show that during the scrutiny of contracts pertaining to the four programmes, it was found that only titles of these programmes figured in the Transmission Log Book/Cue Sheets of the Kendra on the basis of which authenticity/genuineness of the payees/participants of these programmes could not be confirmed due to non-availability of the details of the same”, read the judgment.
The charge sheet contains a specific allegation that in the matter of preparation of programme “Tote Gov Koal”, petitioner in connivance with accused Ghulam Mohi-ud-din had approved payments amounting to Rs.8,97,600/ in the proposal and contract register. Similarly, in respect of programme “Rum Gayam Sheeshas” there is an allegation that the petitioner approved payment of Rs.5,67,000/ in the proposal/contract register.
“In the face of aforesaid overwhelming material on record of the charge sheet against the petitioner, it can by no stretch of imagination be said that the charge against the petitioner is groundless or that there has been any non-application of mind on the part of sanctioning authority while passing the impugned order of sanction against the petitioner”, court concluded and dismissed the petition of Masoodi with the observation that the same is without any merit.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
