CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 649 of 1995 PETITIONER: STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR RESPONDENT: SUDERSHAN CHAKKAR AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/05/1995 BENCH: DR. A.S. ANAND & M.K. MUKHERJEE JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
1995 (1) Suppl. SCR 294
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
Delay condoned.
Special leave granted.
On a First Information Report lodged by the Director, Food & Supplies,
Jammu, a case under sections 120-B, 467 and 409IPC and section 5(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act was registered against the two respondents
herein, who at the material time were the Tehsil Supply Officers of Ramban,
one Nijamuddin, a Store Keeper, and two transport contractors, the
allegation being that all of them hatched a criminal conspiracy and
pursuant thereto misappropriated foodgrains and empty bags of the Food and
Supplies Department worth Rs. 3,22,119.36 after forging official documents.
The Police Vigilance Organisation took up investigation of the case and
submitted a charge-sheet, whereupon the Special Judge, Anti Corruption,
Jammu took cognizance. Thereafter he heard the parties on the question of
framing of charges and held that a prima facie case was made out only
against the other three arraigned but not against the two respondents.
Accordingly he discharged them by his order dated June 28, 1993, Aggrieved
thereby the appellant filed a revisional application in the High Court of
Jammu & Kashmir which was dismissed. Hence this appeal.
On perusal of the record we find that one of the circumstances on which the
prosecution sought to rely to prove its case against the two respondents
was that they did not perform their mandatory duties of monthly inspection
of the stores of the Food & Supplies Department and checking of the daily
remittances of the sale proceeds to the Treasury.
According to the prosecution this omission on the part of the respondents
for months together along with other materials collected during
investigation clearly indicated that it was deliberate and that the
involvement of the two respondents in the offences alleged against them,
particularly the offence of criminal conspiracy stood established. In
dealing with the above circumstance the learned Courts below observed that,
at best, it indicated negligence on the part of the two respondents and not
their criminal misconduct. The learned courts below next referred to and
relied upon certain letters purportedly written by the respondent No. 1 to
its higher authorities, wherein he had complained against irregularities
being committed by the accused Nijamuddin, to conclude that the letters
clearly demonstrated the bonafides of the two respondents.
In our considered view, the learned Courts below erred in basing their
respective orders on the above findings. The question whether the
respondents omitted to do their mandatory duties for months together
designedly or negligently can be inferred only on an over all view of all
the materials collected during investigation and not in isolation as has
been done by the learned Courts below. That apart in a case instituted upon
a Police Report the Court is required, at the time of framing of the
charges, to confine its attention to documents referred to under section
173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only. In that context the Court was
not justified in referring to, much less, relying upon the letters
purportedly written by the accused when, their authenticity and veracity
are yet to be gone into.
For the foregoing discussion we allow this appeal set aside the impugned
orders and direct the learned Trial Judge to proceed with the matter afresh
in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made
hereinbefore. By way of abundant caution we make it clear that in dealing
with the matter the learned Judge shall not allow himself to be influenced
by anything said in this order in regard to the merits of the case.
Appeal allowed