Srinagar: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh on Wednesday acquitted a government official for corruption charges after setting aside the trial court conviction order passed in the year 2015.
Ghulam Mohammad Dar, a government official filed a plea before court challenging the conviction order passed by Anti-corruption court Srinagar in the year 2015 against him for being passed without proper application of evidence on record.
It was on the basis of the complainant Abdul Majeed Misgar who approached Vigilance Organization, Kashmir, with a written complaint alleging therein that the accused had demanded illegal gratification of Rs.2000/ for processing his GP fund case.
Justice Sanjay Dhar while perusing the statements of witnesses and evidence on record noted that in the instant case the complainant has clearly stated that he voluntarily, without any demand, put the money in the pocket of the accused.
“He has nowhere stated that the accused has demanded money from him. In fact, this part of the statement has remained unchallenged,” he recorded.
It was noted by the court that to proceed in the matter of illegal gratification, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that there was demand of money and the same was voluntarily accepted by the accused.
However, none of the witnesses tried by court has stated that they have seen or heard the accused demanding the money from the complainant.
Even the independent witness has only seen the complainant handing over the money to the accused whereas the shadow witness is not even sure about it.
“None of these witnesses has actually heard the accused demanding money from the complainant,” court said.
In this view of the matter, the court recorded it cannot be said that prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the ingredient of demand and voluntary acceptance of the illegal gratification from the accused.
On top of it, the court noted that even the recovery of the tainted money from the possession of the accused is shrouded in suspicious circumstances.
“Thus, the trial court was not justified in raising presumption under Section 4 of the J&K P.C. Act against the appellant/accused,” Justice Dhar said.
Apart from the above, the court noted that there are several other discrepancies in the present case, which have escaped the notice of the trial court while appreciating the evidence on record.
The court while perusing the case said that according to the complainant, he was having only Rs.1500/ with him at the time when he reached the office of Vigilance Organization in connection with pre-trap demonstration and these 1500 rupees consisted of 15 currency notes of Rs 100 each.
“The complainant has gone on to state that the officers of the Vigilance Organization exchanged it with four currency notes of five hundred rupees each. He reiterated the same in his cross-examination by defence,” the court noted.
The court said even this discrepancy has not been cleared by the prosecution by putting the witness to cross-examination after seeking permission from the court.
“Not only this, there is evidence on record to show that when the money was handed over by the complainant to the accused, the Dysp caught hold of him by his hands and even when the complainant went inside the office of the accused, the complainant caught hold of his hand and made him to come downstairs, “the court recorded.
Thus, the possibility of accused coming into contact with phenolphthalein smeared hands of the complainant and members
of the trap team cannot be ruled out, which may have been the reason that when his hands were washed, the solution turned pink.
Justice Dhar recorded from the foregoing sequence of events which have come forth from the evidence on record, it becomes clear that even the trap laying team has not taken necessary precautions and followed the standard operating procedure in the matters governing trap.
“This makes the whole process of trap laying in the instant case suspicious and tainted,” Justice Dhar pointed.
“For all the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment does not deserve to be sustained. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside, as a consequence whereof, the accused stands acquitted of the charges,” the court said.

NUSRAT SIDIQ