After 23 years of investigation and trial, Special Judge Anticorruption Ritesh Kumar Dubey acquitted Ajit Kumar IAS, then Additional Chief Secretary, Janak Singh Financial Advisor/Chief Accounts Officer, Ghulam Rasool Vakil alias Lassa Vakil in much publicized Jute Mate Scam.
The case of the prosecution briefly is that the present case was registered on the basis of a preliminary enquiry wherein it was established prima facie that the SLPC members of Education Department headed by Ajit Kumar then Additional Chief Secretary (hereinafter referred as A-1) had placed a supply order for three lac meters of Jute Mats with M/s Commercial Corporation Limited Srinagar on exorbitant rates in the year 1997-98, and caused huge loss to the state exchequer by abuse of their official positions, in connivance with the supplier firm. SLPC was constituted, and comprised Additional Chief Secretary as Chairman, Directors School Education Kashmir/Jammu and Director Industries or his representatives (not below the rank of Joint Director) as members, and FA/CAO Education department as member secretary. By virtue of an addendum to earlier order, another member Additional Secretary to Government, Education Department, was also included in the SLPC vide order dated 08-10-1997, who was A. R. Mubarki.
Special Judge Anticorruption after hearing Sr. Adv MA Goni and Adv DS Chouhan for the Ajit Kumar observed that the prosecution has also failed in explaining why certain officers were picked and chosen for prosecution, and certain others left by believing them not guilty of any misconduct. If the accused herein namely Ajit Kumar was guilty of misconduct in the SLPC, the other members were equally responsible for the collective decision in the meeting except A.K Mehta who made his endorsement of the minutes of meeting subject to the observations recorded by him. Though his observations were not by way of a clear refusal to put his signature yet those were preceded by his absence from the meeting. And his conduct referred herein atleast shows that a guilty criminal intention could not be attributed to him.
Court also considered the fact of recovery of a diary reflecting payments to Government officers, and initials ‘A’ and ‘A.K’ with allegation of payments also to the persons with said initials. Again, the prosecution has not led any evidence in this regard. Noting that the diary is alleged to be of accused no. 3, the prosecution could have led circumstantial evidence in this regard also. The possible evidence could also include the statement of Nazir Ahmed Mattoo. Prosecution allegation in this regard is that the personal diary of A-3 mentions payment of Rs. 3150 and Rs. 3110/- to A.K, besides mentioning the amount paid to different Government/private persons, A.K was Ajit Kumar, and that the fact was also confirmed by Nazir Ahmed Mattoo private Secretary of A-1 who was given Rs. 10,000/- by A-3 around the same period, for arranging of Air tickets of A-1. If their was some sort of confirmation possible by Nazir Ahmed Mattoo, the investigating agency cannot be held justified in withholding the deposition of said witness knowing full well that the evidence of such facts is difficult to be found, and that the said person Nazir Ahmed was a crucial witness to establish a link between the illegal payments by accused no. 3 and the accused Ajit Kumar.To summarize, the prosecution has tendered the circumstances of a phone call by Ajit Kumar allegedly for favours to Lassa Vakil, a deposit slip issued by Americian Bank/Citi Bank purportedly for deposit in the account of Ajit Kumar and his wife, recovery of a diary
Court further observed that the prosecution cannot be allowed to seek evidence to rebut the said and other pieces of evidence, by the accused, instead of first itself proving the same under law. In the above referred case, the situation was that the prosecution had failed in proving that the accused did not conduct the enquiry as claimed by him, whereas the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden of proving the facts alleged by it in the present case, and not just failed in leading evidence against some fact pleaded by the accused. In view of the observation made herein before, the prosecution has allowed the missing links noted herein before, to enter its chain of circumstances thereby either weakening or breaking the same. Also, if the accused herein were believed guilty by the prosecution, on the basis of purchase of jute mat in the present case, the leaving of others involved also becomes missing link in the prosecution chain of circumstances. And the law is well settled that the prosecution must establish its case in such a manner that its chain of circumstances is not broken or weakened by any possible doubt, and that the same leads to one and only one hypothesis pointing to the guild of accused. The prosecution efforts fall short of achieving the same in this case.
- With these observations Court is not convinced that the prosecution has been able to remove the element of doubt from its accusations against the accused as well as the charge framed by this court, beyond the shadows of all reasonable doubts by such strong evidence as could lead to one and only one hypothesis pointing to the guilt of the accused and acquitted the accused persons.