1. Home
2. Jammu Kashmir

HC gives Govt 6 weeks to submit report

KT NEWS SERVICE. Dated: 9/5/2013 11:16:09 PM

SRINAGAR, Sep 5: The High Court has given six weeks to state government to look into amendments in the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act (JKPC) 2006.
A division bench comprising of Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir and Muzaffar Hussain Attar has passed the directions after government filed a status report, stating that steps have been taken regarding the amendments in the Act and a committee has already been constituted for the task.
In the status report, the government has also informed the court that SRO-368 has been issued on August 19 by virtue of which powers have been conferred upon the Additional District & Session Judges to try the offences related to corruption.
Until now there were two special anti-corruption courts which were dealing with the graft cases and the high court had had asked the government to confer powers upon the sessions courts to prevent delay in settling such matters. In another direction, the court also dropped the contemplated proceedings against Chief Secretary of the state after he submitted the explanation sought from him in terms of the previous order.
“From the perusal of the compliance report submitted by him, we are satisfied about the explanation so tendered. Therefore, the contemplated proceedings are dropped,” the bench said.
On August 8, the High Court had sought an explanation from Chief Secretary Jammu and Kashmir for “evasive” and “incorrect” compliance report regarding amendments to JKPC Act and creation of the two Additional Special Judge Anti-Corruption courts.
After perusal of the compliance report filed by the Chief Secretary, a division bench of the High Court comprising of Justices Mansoor Ahmad Mir and Muzaffar Hussain Attar observed that it was unclear as to how the government was dealing with the at-least seven suggestions which the court had asked it to consider in terms of the last order (July 4).
“It is stated in the compliance report that suggestions have been sought from the concerned in relation to the amendments in the Jammu & Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act Samvat 2006. But it is not made known to the Court as to what steps they have taken and what material they collected with regard to the suggestions they have made in order to comply with the direction (e) of order dated 04-07-2013,” the bench said, adding, “It is also not made known to the Court as to how they have dealt with direction (e).”
The seven suggestions include awarding of maximum of 20 years and minimum of 6 years in jail under section 5 (2) of the Act, making bail provisions stringent and parallel to Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act.
“In case after receipt of report/record from the Vigilance Organization, the competent authority does not record sanction for prosecution within a period of one month, it shall be deemed that sanction for prosecution has been granted,” reads the fourth suggestions made at the bar during course of the hearing on July 4 and to be considered by the Chief Secretary.
The others suggestions include posting and appointing of more trained Investigation Officers in Vigilance Organization and prescribing outer time limit for conducting investigation; ensuring that once the charge is framed, trial shall continue on day to day basis till its conclusion and lastly Investigation Officer shall be made responsible to ensure attendance of the prosecution witnesses before the trial court.
In response to the other directions— (f) and (g) of the July 4 order—the court observed that it is stated that two Courts of Additional Special Judge Anticorruption have been created which is not the subject matter of the PIL at all.
The court had sought a response from the government to the suggestions of the Vigilance Organization for creation of two special courts at Srinagar and Jammu for trying the offences under the provisions of the Act.
“The direction was unambiguous in as much as the direction was creation of two Courts after the year 2011 but the creation of two posts which the respondents have referred to in the compliance report is of the year 2008. Thus the reply is evasive and incorrect.”
It is further stated, court observed, that for purposes of conferment of power under the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006, to all the courts of Additional District and Session Judges, the response from the Registrar General is awaited. “This is blatantly incorrect because the Registrar General has already responded to communication (by government on 18/10/2012.”