Jammu June-21-2023:- Additional Sessions Judge Anticorruption Doda Amarjeet Singh Langeh took serious note for not made the statement of witness as part of challan, directed Director ACB to enquire as to why the statements of witnesses as aforesaid were not made part of challan by the investigating officer concerned ; fix the responsibility for the laps and proceed against errant investigator according to law and submit a detailed report in this regard by next date of hearing without fail. In the meanwhile, it shall also be ensured that the statements of witnesses which according to one of investigator present today stand submitted in the court Ld Special Judge Anticorruption Jammu – be also caused to be produced before this court in consonance with law by next date of hearing.
This significant order was passed when Court was hearing FIR No. 21 of 2007 was registered with police station Vigilance organization Jammu in the year 2007 on charge/discharge. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in this court on 09.04.2015 seeking trial of the accused for offences under sections 5(1)(e) r/w 5(2) of J&K PC Act Svt 2006. It is since then the matter is pending for arguments on charge/discharge. On 20.01.2013, when the matter was being argued – it emerged that statements of witnesses recorded under section 161 of Cr.PC were not made part of challan at the time of its presentation. a detailed order was passed on said date the operative portion of which reads as under “ Let therefore, in the first place, investigating officer of the case be put on notice to explain/clarify his position in aforesaid context by or before next date of hearing so that appropriate orders can follow up thereafter. Accordingly, the office is directed to issue notice as aforesaid to the investigating officer to be served upon him through the Senior Superintendent of Vigilance concerned. Copy of order shall also go to the investigating officer.
When the matter was taken-up today Additional Sessions Judge Anticorruption Doda Amarjeet Singh observed that as a follow up of said order that one of the investigating officers namely Rajesh Sandal, Superintendent of police has caused appearance. His version is recorded in the open court in the form of statement and made part of file. According to this investigating officer, he conducted initial investigation in the case and recorded statements of nine witnesses under section 161 of Cr.PC which were subsequently submitted in the court of Ld Special Judge Anticorruption Jammu through SSP Vigilance. According to this investigating officer, he was subsequently transferred and investigation was handed over to Inspector V.P. Singh who subsequently expired. Thereafter, according to the investigating officer present – investigation was entrusted to Inspector Manjeet Singh vide order SSP/FIR/10-2293-96/VOJ on 19.08.2010. Interestingly, the name of Inspector Manjeet Singh does not figure in the list of witnesses in the challan. According to this Investigating officer – only the Investigating officer who presented the challan can explain as to why the statements of witnesses recorded under section 161 of Cr.PC were not made part of challan. Inevitably, the circumstances outlined here-in-above have not only scuttled progress in the case but the egregious lapses ought to have swirled the higher ups in what is now called the Anti corruption Bureau . For an investigator not to make statements of witnesses recorded under section 161 of Cr.Pc – part of challan – is fraught with potentially serious consequences. Can a challan be said to be complete sans statements of witnesses under sections 161 of Cr.PC in as serious a case as one under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. There is a need to go to the bottom of these laps.
Upon this Court directed Director ACB to enquire into the matter and fix responsibility. JNF