Srinagar, Aug 21(KNS): The Court of Additional Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Srinagar, here on Wednesday acquitted Ghulam Mohiuddin, son of Hyder Ganie from Whabpora, Budgam (then Accounts Assistant at the BDO Office, Budgam), and Assadullah Kuchay, son of Jamal Kuchay from Neego Brenwar, Budgam (then Village Level Worker at the BDO Office, Budgam), of all corruption charges related to a case dating back to 2008.
The case originated on 24th November 2008, when the complainant, Mohd Sultan Mir, lodged a formal complaint with the Vigilance Organization Kashmir (VOK). He reported that in February 2008, he had applied for assistance under the Indira Awaas Yojana (IAY) Scheme for constructing a shed at Gund-Sathoo, Budgam. Despite his repeated visits to the concerned office and persistent requests, the Village Level Worker and the accountant responsible for processing his case allegedly demanded a bribe of ?2,000 as illegal gratification.
Seeking to expose the corruption, Mohd Sultan Mir approached the VOK on the same day with ?1,000, hoping to prompt legal action against the accused officials at the Block Office Budgam. Based on his complaint, FIR No. 32/2008 was registered under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Svt. 2006, in conjunction with Sections 161 and 163 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC).
In its judgment, the Srinagar court found that the prosecution had failed to prove the essential elements of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused. The court emphasized that mere possession and recovery of currency notes from the accused, without conclusive evidence of a demand for the bribe, does not constitute an offense under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Svt.Click Here To Follow Our WhatsApp Channel2006, and Sections 161 and 163 of the RPC. The court also noted that the presumption under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act could only be invoked if there was clear proof of such a demand.
The judgment referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam (2013) 12 SCC 406, reiterating the principle that suspicion, no matter how strong, cannot replace proof. The prosecution must elevate its case from "may be true" to "must be true" to eliminate any potential doubt or conjecture. The court further stressed that to avoid miscarriage of justice, when two plausible views exist, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the accused.
Given the absence of legal evidence to substantiate the demand for illegal gratification, the court ruled that the prosecution's case could not be upheld. As a result, the charges against Ghulam Mohiuddin and Assadullah Kuchay under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 161 and 163 of the RPC were dismissed. The accused were acquitted and subsequently released from the bail and personal bonds they had previously executed. The case file was ordered to be archived after due compilation. The respondents were represented by Adv. Mr. Junaid Rashid(KNS).