Srinagar: Senior PDP leader and former minister Naeem Akhtar Andrabi, along with two former officials of J&K Projects Construction Corporation (JKPCC) has been discharged by a special court here in a corruption case registered against them six years ago.
Observing that a criminal court has not to act as post office and become the mouthpiece of prosecution, Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Surinder Singh, said the charges against the accused under various sections of law were found to be groundless before dismissing the chargesheet filed against them in 2021.
“No case for framing of charge against the accused is made out…accused shall stand discharged accordingly. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged,” the judge said in his 27-page order passed on August 29.
In 2019, the Crime Branch of Police registered an FIR under various sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act against Andrabi, the then JKPCC managing director Vikar Mustafa Shonthu and then company secretary, JKPCC, Neeru Chadha.
The FIR was filed after the J&K administration approached the agency, highlighting alleged irregularities in the appointment of Shonthu by the former minister as the chairman of the board of directors of JKPCC.
The case was registered after the fact-finding committee, constituted by the government on November 28, 2018 to look into the affairs of JKPCC, in its report on March 6, 2019 said the appointment of Shonthu in March 2018 is “illegal and in gross violation of the laid down rules”.
The case came to light after the fall of PDP-BJP government in June 2018.
On April 22, 2021, the government accorded sanction to launching of prosecution against the former PDP minister and the two former JKPCC officials for commission of offences punishable under various sections of Prevention of Corruption Act and Ranbir Penal Code, and consequently submitted the chargesheet before the court.
The court said Andrabi besides being chairman of JKPCC was working as works minister at relevant time and it is difficult to visualize that the accused can be construed to have adopted corrupt or illegal means or to have abused his position to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage either for himself or for other accused.
“If the statements of witnesses examined under section 161 CrPC would show that no proper notice was given to the board members prior to the conducting of 93rd board meeting or that no agenda item pertaining to the placement of Shonthu as managing director prepared…it is the conduct and the action of the accused which may have been improper or contrary to departmental norms,” the judge said.
For charging the accused under any of penal section, there should be some material on record for presuming that the accused has committed an offence for which he is to be charged, the court said, adding criminal court has not to act as post office and become mouthpiece of prosecution and frame charge at the wish of prosecution.
“Calling a person to face charges without any sufficient evidence would amount to violation of fundamental right. When the court is fairly certain that there is no chance of conviction even if all the evidence is considered as it is without cross examination, then the court can certainly discharge the accused,” the judge said after hearing the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and going through the material on record carefully.
The judge said the material on record would nowhere show any iota of evidence direct or circumstantial to satisfy the court that there was a prior meeting of minds between the accused persons.
“So also, no physical manifestation of such a concurrence extractable from surrounding circumstances, declarations, or the conduct of the accused, was there,” the he said, adding an offence of criminal conspiracy cannot be deemed to have been established on mere suspicion and surmises or inference, which is not supported by cogent and acceptable evidence.
In order to prove the charges against the accused, the court said the prosecution had to collect evidence to substantiate those charges against the accused and so far there is no iota of evidence on record to prima facie prove the charges against the accused persons.
“Once there is no material found to frame the charges against the accused under the provisions of Special Act i.e. Prevention of Corruption Act, the other offences under RPC interconnected with the main offences are bound to be dropped.
“…Keeping in view the contents of the chargesheet, evidence on file and submissions of both the sides besides the law laid down on the subject and discussions, there appears no ground for proceeding against the accused, as such accused named in the chargesheet deserve to be discharged of the charges levelled,” the court said.
