J&K High Court Orders Accused Officers in Jawahar Rozgar Yojna Scam To Approach Trial Court for Release of Seized Amount

Must Read

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration,...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be...

Follow us

On 14th September 2020, Justice Sanjay Dhar heard the case of Mst. Haleema And Others vs State Of J&K & Ors, via video-conferencing. In the absence of the record of the charge sheet, the Court could not adjudicate upon the present case. Therefore, it directed the petitioners to approach the trial court again.

Facts of the Case

The Central Government introduced a scheme called “Jawahar Rozgar Yojna” for the creation of assets in the rural areas of the erstwhile state of J&K. The Rural Development Department of the Government was entrusted with its implementation. The officers and the officials of the same misused their position to swindle huge amounts. Therefore, various cases were registered by the Vigilance Organization, Kashmir which led to the presenting of a challan before the Special Judge Court for Anti-corruption. During the investigation, certain bank accounts were frozen. On 21st September 1993, the learned Special Judge, Anti-corruption passed a restraint order against the contemplated disbursement of amounts. Some of the accused succeeded in getting the amount released by virtue of various orders passed by the learned Special Judge, Anticorruption. Further, these orders were challenged before this Court by virtue of nineteen separate Revision Petitions.

This Court allowed these petitions on 20th October 2000 and set aside the order of the learned Special Judge, Anticorruption. Furthermore, it directed the learned Special Judge to reconsider the matter in the light of material collected by the Vigilance Organization. On 16th June 2009, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Anti-corruption considered the matter. The judge dismissed the petitioners’ applications in the order. It is this order which has been challenged by the petitioners through the medium of the instant petition.

Arguments of the Petitioners

The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that nothing incriminating has been brought on record. Thus, nothing would disentitle the petitioners from claiming the amount of FDRs belonging to the petitioners. It is further contended that the amount sought to be released is not remotely connected with the embezzled amount.

Court’s Analysis

It is noted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Anticorruption, Srinagar declined to release the amount in favour of the petitioners. This was on the ground that some of the petitioners are accused in the main/supplementary challan. On the other hand, some others figure in the annexures to the supplementary challan which contains the list of non- existent persons. The parties placed a record before this record. However, it does not reveal the particulars and details of the persons figuring in the annexures to the supplementary challan. Further, it does not reveal the particulars of the persons falling in the list of accused in the main challan and the supplementary challan. For deciding the controversies raised, the record of the charge sheet placed before the learned trial court needs to be examined. However, the summoning of the record for disposal of the instant petition will lead to a delay in the progress of the trial. In these circumstances, the only option available with the Court is to give liberty to the petitioners to approach the trial court once again for the release of the seized amounts.

Court’s Decision

The Court directed the petitioners to approach the trial court for seeking the release of payment orders/CDRs/FDRs. Further, the trial court shall be at liberty to take a view in the matter on its own merits in view of the change of circumstances, if any, without getting influenced by the impugned order.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google NewsInstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of the Central Government. Any reasonable...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be interpreted to also apply to...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Challenging Allahabad High Court Order Granting Interim Bail on Medical Grounds

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Judgment & Order of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of State of U.P...

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -