A Srinagar court has discharged ex-J&K minister Naeem Akhtar and two others in a 2019 corruption case over the appointment of JKPCC MD. The judge ruled it was an administrative irregularity, not a criminal offence.
Srinagar: A court in Srinagar has discharged former Jammu and Kashmir minister Naeem Akhtar and two others in a corruption case linked to the appointment of an officer as the Managing Director (MD) of the Jammu and Kashmir Projects Construction Corporation (JKPCC).
The case was connected to the year 2018, when Akhtar was Chairman of JKPCC and also Works Minister. At that time, General Manager Vikar Mustafa Shonthu was given the charge of the post of JKPCC MD after the retirement of the then Managing Director.
The prosecution alleged that Akhtar, Shonthu, and JKPCC Company Secretary Neeru Chadha were involved in an illegal appointment, and a case was registered in 2019 soon after the fall of the PDP-BJP government in the Union Territory.
On August 29, Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Srinagar, Surinder Singh, passed the order discharging all three accused. The Court observed that the charge given to Shonthu did not amount to promotion.
The judge said,
“The distinction between a situation where a government servant is promoted to a higher post and one where he is merely asked to discharge the duties of the higher post is too clear to require any reiteration. Asking an officer who substantively holds a lower post merely to discharge the duties of a higher post cannot be treated as a promotion.”
On this basis, the Court rejected the charge that Shonthu had been appointed or promoted as MD. The order further stated,
“I am afraid if the prosecution fails in proving the above said plea, it would be uphill task for them to establish the requisite ingredients of offence of criminal misconduct aided with criminal conspiracy on the part of the accused persons.”
The Court clarified that Akhtar’s decision could at best be treated as an administrative irregularity but not a criminal offence. It also rejected the allegation that he acted with dishonest intent for financial benefit.
ALSO READ: Bengaluru Court Rejects Actress Pavithra Gowda’s Bail Plea in Renukaswamy Murder Case
The judge noted,
“The order of assignment of charge issued by the accused-Chairman was in the administrative capacity enjoyed by him and if at all and as alleged by the prosecution, the Chairman was lacking power to issue such order, the same could have been an irregularity in the administrative capacity and not illegality and much less than being an offence under section 5(1) (d) r/w 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act attributed to the accused-Chairman.”
At the same time, the Court held that Shonthu was not entitled to draw House Rent Allowance (HRA) during the time he was holding charge as MD since he already had official accommodation.
The order stated,
“As HRA is for those who incur expenses on rent for private housing. Eligibility for HRA ceases once the government provides official accommodation. Therefore, HRA amounting to Rs. 117014/- stated to be drawn by the accused-2 during the period from March 2018 to November 2018 can be recovered from him if he was otherwise held entitled to the official accommodation at Jammu during the period.”
However, the Court clarified that this did not make out any offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The judge was also not convinced about the charge of criminal conspiracy.
The order stated,
“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. 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. Again I am not persuaded to hold that there is sufficient material to presume that accused have committed the said offences.”
Finally, the Court observed that after considering the chargesheet, available evidence, and legal arguments, there was no reason to proceed further against the accused. It therefore dismissed the chargesheet.
The accused were represented by senior lawyers. Senior Advocates Altaf Haqani and Aasif Wani appeared for Naeem Akhtar, while Senior Advocate Faisal Qadri and Advocate Feroz Ahmad represented the other accused.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Election Commission
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
