Srinagar, Sept 2 : The Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Kashmir, has dismissed a chargesheet filed by Crime Branch Kashmir (CBK) against former minister and PDP leader Naeem Akhtar and two others over alleged irregularities in the 2018 appointment of a senior officer in the Jammu & Kashmir Projects Construction Corporation (JKPCC).
The other two officers discharged in the case by the court on August 29 included former Managing Director (MD) of JKPCC, Vikar Mustafa Shonthu, and the then Company Secretary of the Corporation, Neeru Chadha.
Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Kashmir, Surinder Singh in his judgment said that no prima facie suspicion could be drawn against the accused.
“Keeping in view the contents of charge sheet, evidence on file and submissions of both the sides besides the law laid down on the subject, there appears to be no ground for proceeding against the accused, as such accused named in the charge sheet deserve to be discharged of the charges levelled against them,” the court order read.
“Consequently, no case for framing of charge against the accused is made out. Therefore, charges under the aforesaid sections of law are found to be groundless. Charge sheet is dismissed. Accused shall stand discharged accordingly. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged,” the order added.
The Crime Branch had registered a case in 2019 against three persons including Akhtar, in irregularity in the appointment of Shonthu as managing director of JKPCC under sections of 420 (cheating), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of offence), 167 (create or translate an incorrect document etc) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of erstwhile Ranbir Penal Code.
The FIR was registered after a fact-finding committee, constituted by the J&K government in November 2018, submitted its report on March 6, 2019. The panel found that the appointment of then JKPCC managing director Shonthu was illegal and in gross violation of rules. It noted that the chairman’s order, the agenda placed before the Board of Directors, and the final order issued by the company secretary were inconsistent with one another and beyond their competence.
Akhter was at that time the chairman of JKPCC and the then Works Minister.
The investigation further established that it was beyond the power and competence of Akhter as chairman JKPCC to assign the work of managing director to Shonthu.
The J&K government, in April, 2021, accorded sanction for prosecution of former minister Akhtar, along with then JKPCC officials Shonthu and Chadha. The sanction followed evidence gathered by the investigating agency, leading to a chargesheet under the Prevention of Corruption Act and relevant sections of the RPC, which was subsequently filed before the court for judicial determination.
The prosecution held that there were sufficient material, including oral as well as documentary, that prove the involvement and commission of offences by the accused persons.
The counsel for the accused argued that the JKPCC, being a private company registered under the Companies Act and not constituted by the legislature, did not make its chairman a ‘public servant’ under Section 21 of the Ranbir Penal Code.
He contended that the 2018 order assigning Shonthu the charge of managing director was only a temporary arrangement after the retirement of the then MD, and not a permanent appointment. The defence further maintained that Shonthu never drew the salary or allowances of an MD.
Arguing that the prosecution evidence did not meet the requirements of the Prevention of Corruption Act or other alleged offences, counsel advanced for discharge of the accused.
After hearing the arguments, the court observed that the 2018 order issued by the accused chairman only assigned Shonthu, then GM, to “look after the work of Managing Director” following the retirement of the incumbent. The wording, the court noted, indicated a temporary arrangement rather than a substantive promotion.
The prosecution, however, has treated the order as a full-fledged appointment, forming the basis of its case against the accused.
The court also rejected the charge of criminal conspiracy under Sections 420 and 120-B RPC, observing that there was no direct or circumstantial evidence to suggest a prior meeting of minds among the accused.
The court further noted that the accused had also been charged under Section 167 RPC for framing an incorrect document and under Section 201 RPC for destruction of evidence. However, it observed that merely citing penal provisions in a chargesheet does not establish guilt, and in this case the prosecution had failed to produce any evidence to substantiate the allegations.
The court held that the arguments of the Special Public Prosecutor were not supported by evidence on record and that precedents cited were inconsistent with the facts of the case.
It observed that since no material was found to frame charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the connected offences under the Ranbir Penal Code also could not be sustained and were accordingly dropped.