AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
I),Date of tender,10.05.2010
II),"Date of acceptance of offer of the complainant by Chief
Engineer, PMGSY(JKRRDA)",24.06.2010
III),"Date of execution of contract between The Chief Engineer
and the complainant",17.08.2010
IV),Date of commencement of work,12.09.2010
V),"Date on which bribe money was allegedly paid by the
complainant to the petitioner",25.04.2011
VI),Stipulated date of completion of work -,12.03.2012
VII),Date of termination of contract,06.08.2012
VIII),"Date of filing of writ petition challenging the termination of
contract and tender notice dated 25.03.2013 issued for
execution of balance work",05.04.2013
IX),"Date of filing of complaint by the complainant, which is
subject matter of this petition",21.12.2013
X),Date of registration of impugned FIR,02.02.2016
petitioner in April, 2011, chose to approach the agency as late as in December, 2013. Without undertaking this exercise, it was not open to the",,
Vigilance Organization to rely upon the bald allegations of the complainant. The delay in lodging the complaint in the instant case assumes great,,
significance in the face of the fact the contract of the complainant was terminated on the recommendation of the petitioner and it was only after the,,
termination of the contract and subsequent re-tendering of the balance work, that the complainant chose to set the law into motion by filing the",,
complaint. Without going into this aspect of the case and simply accepting the version of the complainant as a gospel truth, the enquiry officer has",,
abdicated his legal duty and thereby landed himself into an error by setting the criminal proceedings into motion.,,
19) It has been vehemently argued by learned Senior AAG, appearing for the official respondents, that there are documents on record of the case that",,
would suggest that there was transfer of money from the account of complainant to the account of Dr. Aijaz Ahmad Kamili, who in turn had cash",,
transactions with the petitioner and his wife which cannot be ignored.,,
20) It is true that there is material on record to show that the complainant had transferred a sum of Rs.90,000/ to the account of Dr. Aijaz Ahmad",,
Kamili and it is also a fact that there were a number of banking transactions between said Dr. Aijaz Ahmad Kamili and petitioner as well as his wife.,,
This, however, does not lead us anywhere as these transactions do not indicate that it is the petitioner who had accepted money from the complainant.",,
The bank statements would show that there have been several transactions between the petitioner and Dr. Aijaz Ahmad Kamili even prior to the date,,
of alleged transfer of bribe money and subsequent thereto as well. Thus, just because the complainant credited an amount of Rs.90,000 to the account",,
of Dr. Aijaz Ahmad Kamili who was having bank transactions with the petitioner or his wife for many years, does not lead to the conclusion that the",,
petitioner had accepted any money from the complainant. Therefore, it cannot be stated that there is any material on record to even remotely suggest",,
that the petitioner has accepted the bribe money from the complainant. The argument of learned Senior AAG, therefore, deserves to be rejected.",,
21) For the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the complaint, which has become the basis of the impugned FIR, has been",,
lodged by the complainant with an ulterior motive in order to settle score with the petitioner who had recommended termination of his contract. The,,
case, therefore, squarely falls under category (g) mentioned by the Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal’s case (supra) If the prosecutions of instant",,
nature are allowed to proceed, then no Engineer would dare to take action against an erring contractor.",,
22) Thus, this is a fit case where the Court should exercise its discretionary powers under Section 482 of Cr. P. C (corresponding to Section 561-A of",,
the Jammu and Kashmir Code of Criminal Procedure) to quash the proceedings that have been initiated against the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition",,
is allowed and the impugned FIR bearing No. No.05/2016 and the criminal proceedings emanating there from against the petitioner are quashed.,,
23) The case diary be returned to learned Sr. AAG,,