Title: FAROOQ AHMAD LONE vs. STATE OF J&K & OTHERS
Citation: OWP No.1448/2014
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL
Decided on: 21.10.2023
Introduction:
The petitioner has initiated this writ petition with the objective of seeking the quashing of FIR No.42/2007, lodged at the Police Station, Vigilance Organization, Kashmir, as well as the Government Order No.22-GAD(Vig.) of 2014, dated 08.08.2014. These legal actions were taken by respondents No.2 and 3, granting the sanction to prosecute the petitioner and other officials.
Facts:
The facts of the case are such that, the petitioner, Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din Bhat, served as a Block Officer in Handwara Town from June 2005 to October 2009. It is claimed that during this period, he did not engage in any conspiracy. Furthermore, during his tenure, the stocks of deodar wood, both round and sawn, totalling 3305 cubic feet, were found to be neither illicit nor illegal, and they were accurately recorded in the official documents. However, the authorities have initiated a case for prosecution without thoroughly reviewing the petitioner’s response to the questions posed by the Investigating Officer.
On December 23, 2013, respondent No.5 requested respondent No.2 to grant sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act and RPC against the petitioner and others. Surprisingly, respondent No.2 granted sanction on August 8, 2014, without thoroughly examining the communication, for prosecution on charges related to various sections of the PC Act, RPC, and the Jammu & Kashmir Forest Act, indicating a lack of proper consideration. It is also mentioned that Forester Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din Bhat and records related to private timber sales depot holders were not directly involved in this charge. The case involves an investigation conducted by the Vigilance Organization, Kashmir authorities, and the Forest Protection Force. In the case, the respondents argue that the sanction granted for prosecuting the petitioner on charges related to the RPC (Ranbir Penal Code) and the Jammu & Kashmir Forest Act is valid. They base this argument on the notion that the provisions of Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006, take precedence over the general provisions found in Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. P. C). Therefore, they assert that no separate sanction was necessary for the offenses under RPC and the J&K Forest Act, as the sanction under the PC Act covers them.
Court Analysis and Judgement:
In this judgment, the court has considered the arguments presented by the petitioner’s counsel, who relied on certain judgments in support of their case. The court, however, has concluded that the judgments cited by the petitioner’s counsel are not relevant to the specific facts and circumstances of the case. As a result, the court has decided to dismiss the petitioner’s case, indicating that it finds no merit in the petitioner’s claims. The judgment emphasizes that the petitioner is free to present their defence before the trial court, and the trial court should consider their defence without being influenced by any observations made by the court in this particular judgment.
Essentially, this judgment denies the petitioner’s claims and instructs them to address their defence in the trial court independently, without taking into account the court’s findings in this case. It also directs that a copy of this order should be sent to the trial court for their information and compliance.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written By: Gauri Joshi
