Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Apr 2: Special Judge Anticorruption Jammu, A K Koul has acquitted Girdawar and others as prosecution failed to prove its case.
The Girdawar Jamal Din was booked on the basis of allegations that he with malafide intention conferred undue benefit on the accused Narinder Singh, Pritam Singh, Promod Singh and Ashok Singh by recording their names in the Khasra Girdawari in respect of State land measuring 215 kanals under Khasra No.1845/1734 of Halqa Bari Brahmana.
During preliminary verification, it came to fore that though Girdawar was not competent to record Girdawari of State land in favour of accused beneficiaries, it was a blatant misuse of his official position in connivance with beneficiaries.
On the basis of the recommendations of preliminary verification, a case was registered for further investigation. After investigation, the investigating agency recorded a conclusion that State land measuring 215 kanals existing in close proximity to land under Khasra No.579, was illegally encroached upon by accused and the Deputy Commissioner Jammu vide his office order No.DCJAD/ MF/GDS/06-07/624-632 dated 07.10.2006 had dispossessed all these persons from the State land in question and the land so retrieved was allotted to Jammu Development Authority.
While concluding the investigation, the investigating officer(s) found that accused the then Girdawar Jamal Din had abused his official position by conferring undue benefit on other accused by making illegal entry in the revenue record in their name in respect of the State land under Khasra No. 1845/1734 min measuring 215 kanals, which he was not authorized to do.
After hearing both the sides, the court observed, “the conclusion that emerges from the discussion is that the prosecution case has so many seriously doubtful patches”, adding “the oral evidence is short of proving the guilt against the accused and the documentary evidence is either inadmissible or irrelevant”.
“It would not be safe to record a conviction on the basis of very weak evidence. The investigation itself appears to be misdirected and obviously the conclusion based on that investigation would also be faulty. Normally defective investigation should not be a reason to reject a version but then it may be hazardous to base a conviction on the basis of totally misdirected investigation and faulty prosecution”, the court said.
With these observations, the court dismissed the case and acquitted the accused.
Follow our WhatsApp channel