Srinagar: The High Court of J&K and Ladakh has ruled that proceedings in revision are discretionary and are to be exercised in rare cases in order to ascertain the correctness, legality and propriety of an order by a trial court.
Justice Javed Iqbal while dismissing a revision petition by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) against Ishfaq Ahmad Zargar, former Executive Engineer and other senior officers of Roads & Buildings (R&B) Department, said “proceeding in revision is not considered to be in continuation of trial pending before the trial court. It is not a remedy inherent or embedded in any manner in the original proceedings instituted before the trial court. But the power admittedly is purely discretionary and is to be exercised in rare cases in order to ascertain and satisfy as to the correctness, legality or propriety of an order.”
According to the ACB, lakhs of rupees had been misappropriated by the engineers and other senior officers of R&B. The accused, according to the ACB, had allotted two road construction projects in Kupwara to their blue-eyed persons in violation of codal formalities and without inviting tenders in 2008.
The case was heard by the Special judge Baramulla, Kupwara, which acquitted the accused.
The trial court discharged all the accused persons/respondents, except one accused who had died during the pendency of the case.
The ACB called in question the discharge order on the ground that the order is not based on facts, law and evidence. It said that the court has not appreciated the facts as well as evidence on record.
Justice Javed Iqbal while hearing the revision petition by the ACB on the allegation of execution of work in question without authorization by the accused, said “the power to accord sanction without tender qua a work by the Executive Engineer is upto Rs five lacs and the works in question indisputably do not fall beyond the said limit of Rs. 5.00 lacs, thus falling within the powers of respondent-officers.”
The bench held that no record suggests that a criminal conspiracy was hatched by respondent-officers with the contractors.
The court said “… the investigating agency had failed to collect any credible convincing evidence in the matter, either to rope in the said officers or else the respondents herein.”
It also said “a closer examination of the trial court order reveals that it has been not only alive to the facts and circumstances of the case, but also to the position and principles of law laid down from time to time by the Apex Court…. It seemingly has passed a well reasoned order without committing any fault, illegality or impropriety.”
The bench stated that it is the consistent view of the courts that an order of discharge of an accused should not be interfered with unless it is perverse or on the face of the record, is incorrect, perfunctory or glaringly unreasonable, inasmuch as, is passed without reasons or is devoid of any reasons.
Further, the power has not to be exercised in order to embark upon the re-appreciation of evidence for coming to a different finding which has been arrived at by the court below, it said.
