EAPEN CHAKOO v. UT OF J&K

impugned FIR. As per information, officers/officials of Mechanical Division, LAWDA, by misuse of their official position and active connivance with each other, had shown huge amount expenditure on fuel and maintenance of mechanical devices engaged for weeding and dredging by fabricating records when actually these amounts were not spent and thereby misappropriated the same. 3) The FIR contains two sets of allegations, one pertaining to amount spent on fuel and other pertaining to expenditure on maintenance of mechanical devices engaged for deweeding and dredging. After conducting the investigation, a separate charge sheet relating to allegation regarding expenditure on account of fuel, was filed before the Special Judge, Anticorruption, Kashmir, Srinagar, whereas another charge sheet came to be filed before the same Court in respect of the allegations relating to expenditure on account of maintenance of devices engaged for deweeding and dredging. The petitioner along with other two officers/officials of LAWDA, namely, Mohammad Ramzan Bhat, Xen, and Shri G. L. Chouraisa, AEE, has been impleaded as an accused in the charge sheet relating to expenditure on account of maintenance of devices engaged for deweeding and dredging. The allegations made in this charge sheet against the petitioner are reproduced as under:

1. The accused was functioning as M.D. MIS Tebma for the period 12/98 to 8/2000. The supply order have been placed by accused No. 1 and 2 to the firm MIS Tebma headed by the accused. The rates quoted by the firm headed by the accused have been found exorbitant. The spares have been supplied to the LWWI)A on behalf of M.D. as the substantial powers of the firm/company rests with the Managing Director, who has to see the affairs of the company. 2. The rates quoted by the accused supplier firm are not approved by any competent authority nor the company is registered with DGS(Director General Supplies) and the rates quoted are so-moto.

3. The company has not manufactured any spare by itself supplied to LWWDA and have procured the same from other sources on low rates and supplied the same to LWWDA on highly exorbitant rates. Exorbitant rates worked on account of Spares supplied by accused supplier firm has been worked out 16,56,725 i.e 172% above from the market rate i.e to 11/1999 are Rs.11,45,286/- and for the period 12/99 to 8/2000 loss to the State are Rs.511,439/- which Exchequer, which has been misappropriated by accused No. I and 2 in league with the accused supplier firm headed by the accused as the accused on behalf of the company claimed for release of payment of spates with-held by the LWWDA and thus being in full knowledge of the company. the period 12/98 4) It has been contended in the petition that the petitioner is not involved in the alleged crime as the allegations made in the charge sheet against him are absolutely false. It is further contended that the rates offered by the petitioner to the LAWDA were genuine and accurate having regard to the quality of spare parts supplied by him. It is also contended that the alleged exorbitant amount has not been released in favour of the petitioner, as such, there has been no loss to the State exchequer and, thus, it cannot be said the offences under Section 5(1)(c)(d) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act are made out against the petitioner. It is further contended that even if there was non-adherence the codal formalities on the part of officers/officials of the LAWDA at the time of issuing supply order in favour of the petitioner, the same does not amount to criminal misconduct as it is only an irregularity. In order to support these contentions, the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments: I) II) III) IV)