Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Dr. Rafiq Masoodi vs Central Bureau Of on 28 September, 2021
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
Reserved on:23.09.2021
Pronounced on:28 .09.2021
CRMC No.24/2017
DR. RAFIQ MASOODI ... PETITIONER(S)
Through: - Mr. R. A. Jan, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Aswad Attar, Advocate.
Vs.
CENTRAL BUREAU OF ...RESPONDENT(S)
INVESTIGATION
Through: - Mr. T. M. Shamsi, ASGI.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1) Petitioner has challenged the order of sanction for prosecution dated 20.05.2015, the challan arising out of FIR No.RC-03 (A) of 2013 CBI/ACB, Srinagar, and order dated 07.11.2016 passed by Special Judge, Anticorruption (CBI Cases), Srinagar, whereby charges for offences under Section 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of J&K Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B RPC have been framed against the petitioner.
2) The facts giving rise to the filing of this petition under Section 561-A of J&K Cr. P. C are that on the basis of source information FIR No. RC-03 (A) of 2013 for offences under Section 5(2) read with MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT 2021.09.29 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 CRMC No.24/2017 5(1)(d) of J&K PC Act, Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B RPC came to be registered by Police Station, CBI/ACB, Srinagar. It was alleged in the FIR that Shri Abdul Qayoom Wadera, Deputy Director General (DDG), Doordarshan Kendra (DDK), Srinagar, had entered into a criminal conspiracy with Shri Ghulam Mohi-u-Din, Programme Executive, Doordarshan Kendra, Srinagar, and some unknown persons. In pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy, they had cheated DDK, Srinagar, while claiming payments amounting to Rs.18.81/ lacs towards 22 fictitious artists stated to have been engaged for production and telecast of four programmes, namely, "Tote Gov Koal", "Rood Kaya Baqi", "Ghar Se Bollywood Tak" and "Rum Gayam Sheeshas" on the basis of fake and fictitious documents thereby causing a wrongful loss to the Government exchequer and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves.
3) On the culmination of the investigation, the competent authority granted sanction to prosecute the petitioner and seven other accused in terms of its order dated 20th of May, 2015, whereafter a challan came to be filed against the petitioner and the accused before the Court of Special Judge, Anticorruption (CBI Cases), Srinagar. As per the challan offences Section 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of J&K PC Act, Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B RPC were found established against the accused. The relevant excerpts of the investigation as delineated in the charge sheet are reproduced as under:-
MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT2021.09.29 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 CRMC No.24/2017
"Investigation revealed that the Department of Doordarshan is governed by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Govt. of India and the department of Prasar Bharti Broadcasting Corporation of India, the main function of which is to plan and telecast programmes to viewers all over the country. The principal ingredients of Doordarshan's programme output are News and Current Affairs, Commercial Programmes, Science Programmes, INSAT Programmes. School and University Programmes, National Programme (music and dance), Sponsored Programmes, Sports Programmes and Feature Films, besides specific audience programmes for rural viewers and industrial workers.
Regarding the organizational set up of Doordarshan and duties/responsibilities of the officers/officials relating to programmes of Doordarshan, investigation revealed that the Directorate General of Doordarshan consists of distinct units namely Programme Wing, Engineering Wing, Administrative and Finance Wing & INSAT Project. The Director General is the head of Organization with office at Delhi, assisted by Additional Director General and Dy. Director Generals who look after the programmes services. The Doordarshan Kendras (DDKs) located in the states of the country are controlled by the officers holding the post of Directors called Deputy Director General (DDG), who are overall in charge of functioning of the respective Kendra and are responsible for transmission of the programmes from the respective Kendras for telecast on air for viewers all over the country.
Investigation revealed that production of the teleserials/programmes in the Doordarshan Kendras is governed by the guidelines and instructions contained in the Doordarshan Manuals 1987, circulated by Ministry of Information & Broadcasting and from the office of Director General, Doordarshan, Prasar Bharti, GoI, New Delhi and by the respective Doordarshan Kendras, to ensure that the programmes are produced as per requirement, format and genre of the programmes including fiction (drama/programmes/soup), nonfiction (documentary, feature, music, dance, chat shows, quiz shows) and other general programmes. Regarding the MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT 2021.09.29 10:14 procedure of production of the programmes, investigation I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 CRMC No.24/2017 revealed that the DDK Programme Executive/producer of the programme has to seek approval from the competent authority i.e. Deputy Director General (DDG), for production of the programme by submitting Concept, Scope, Format, Treatment, Title/language, duration, episode wise as per format, Execution plan containing details of studio ENG shift, the format i.e. indoor/outdoor production, details of facilities required (in case the programme is to be shot in the outdoor locations) like Location, Set Materials, Makeup materials and the Costumes. Technical facilities such as Camera, light, sync recording, post production (editing etc.) facilities are provided by the Engineering department of the Kendra which can be out sourced only after permission from the competent authority i.e. the Director after seeking non availability certificate from the Camera Section, Head of Engineering Wing and I/C editing section which is a pre- condition. Approximate budget/expenditure on fee to the artists and hiring of facilities (if permitted) is to be reflected in the proposal file to explore possibility of outsourcing of the same and the rates of hiring of these facilities could be ascertained from the approved service providers owing to the condition that these facilities should be hired at the lowest rates through proper tendering and the quotation could be called for the process.
Investigation revealed that accused public servants namely Dr. Rafique Masoodi served as Sr. Director/DDG, DDK, Srinagar from May, 2008 to 7th July, 2011 and Sh. Abdul Qayoom Wadera, served as Director/DDK, DDK, Srinagar from 2012 to June, 2013 and Sh. Ghulam Mohi-ud-din, worked as Programme Executive/producer in DDK, Srinagar from 1994 till his superannuation on 28th February 2011 in DDK, Srinagar. Sh. Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din was Incharge of Presentation of Kashir Channel, Drama section and Scenic section of DDK Srinagar since May 2010 till his superannuation in Feb, 2011 and accused public servant Sh. Rajeev Sadhu, worked as Transmission Executive/Duty Officer, in Coordination section of DD Kashir Channel, DDK Srinagar since 27.11.1993 till 8.4.2014. During his tenure accused Ghulam Mohi-ud-din, produced a number of programmes since 1994 including four programmes MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT 2021.09.29 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5 CRMC No.24/2017 namely "Rood Kya Baki, "Tote Gov Koal", Rum Gayam Sheeshas" & Ghar Se Bollywood Tak" in the year 2010- 11. Investigation revealed that Sh. Abdul Qayoom Wadera, then DDG, DDK, Srinagar, vide office note no.
DD/SGR/DDG/4G/2013 dated 22.03.2013 upon instructions of Directorate DD. New Delhi constituted a committee comprising of S/Sh. Shafiq Shah, B.A. Qadri, PEXs, Vikar Ahmad, I/C HC and G.N. Teli, UDC, to ascertain genuineness of the contracts of the artists/participants of the various programmes produced in DDK, Sgr. during the period from 2008 to 2012. The said committee headed by S/Shri G.D. Tahir remarked that "only the titles of these four programmes figured in the transmission logbooks/cue-sheets of the Kendra on the basis of which authenticity/genuineness of the payees/participants of these programmes could not be confirmed due to non-availability of the details of the same in transmission logbooks and the cue sheets." Investigation revealed that as per findings of the enquiry committee, accused Shri Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din, was asked to submit said details of the artist/participants of the aforesaid programmes who submitted the relevant details to the transmission section of DD Kashir in 2013 which were incorporated in the logbooks that had been produced and telecast in years 2010 and 2011.
Investigation revealed that vide an office order/assignment chart bearing No. DKS-PA-IG/10 dated 01.01.2010 of accused Dr. Rafique Masoodi, the then senior Director, DDK Srinagar, accused Ghulam Mohi- ud-din was assigned the duties of Supervision of Wardrobe and scenic Sections. Phulwari (Gojri/Pahari & other dialect Magazine). Variety show, Programme (as & when required). Drama Coordination, Presentation of DD Kashir and telecast of commissioned programmes, MLA Hamara. Accused Sh. Ghulam Mohi-u-Din submitted four proposal files in respect of "Tote Gov Koal". "Rum Gayam Sheeshas," "Rood Kya Baki" & "Ghar Se Bollywood Tak" to accused Dr. Rafique Masoodi, the then DDG, DDK Srinagar, in year 2010, seeking his approval for production of the programmes. Investigation MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT revealed that in the said proposals, accused Gh. Mohi-ud- 2021.09.29 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6 CRMC No.24/2017
din did not submit requisitions for services of the DDK camera men, camera, lighting facilities, editing, sound recording and other facilities from Engineering/camera section DDK Srinagar, required during pre or post production stages of the programmes. Accused Dr. Rafique Masoodi Director, in the capacity of then Sr. Director, DDK Srinagar, approved the proposals of accused Sh. Ghulam Mohi-ud-din, without raising any observations in the said proposals. The programmes were directed, produced and telecast during the tenure of accused Dr. Rafique Masoodi, Director.
Investigation revealed that while producing the programmes accused Sh. Ghulam Mohi-ud-din hired services of cameramen, camera, editing, sound recording etc., from the local market outside DDK, without obtaining any approval from the DDG for hiring of the same. These services were not reflected in the records of DDK Srinagar. Similarly other services like make-up artist, hair dresser, costume designers, hiring of musicians, set directors, hiring of generator sets etc., though shown by accused Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din in the record, at highly exorbitant rates, the service providers of these facilities did not figure in the list of service providers approved by DDK Srinagar, thus by passing guidelines of Door Darshan to hire such services through tenders or quotations for lowest and competitive rates. No vouchers/cash memos were submitted by accused Sh. Ghulam Mohi-ud-din in token of proof of hiring of these services. Investigation also revealed that accused Sh. Ghulam Mohi-ud-din did not claim the charges of hiring of cameras, cameramen, editing, sound recording etc., from DDK Srinagar, thus establishing that these programmes were produced by accused Gh. Mohi-ud-din by hiring cameras, cameramen, editing sound recording and other facilities from outside DDK and not availing from DDK Srinagar, despite being available and adjusted their payments in the names of the fake/fictitious participants, dishonestly and fraudulently to misappropriate the funds sanctioned for production of the said programmes.
Investigation further revealed that the accused persons Dr. Rafique Masoodi, then DDG(P), Ghulam Mohi-ud- MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT 2021.09.29 10:14 din, Rajeev Sadhu & other private persons entered into I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7 CRMC No.24/2017 criminal conspiracy amongst themselves and fraudulently and dishonestly fabricated record of the DDK by entering names of the fake/fictitious artist/participants in the contract agreements, proposal registers, log books, master cue sheets etc., thus facilitating in issuance of the account payee cheques in the names of said fake/fictitious artists/participants and release of Govt. funds in favour of them thus causing wrongful loss to the Govt. Exchequer to the tune of Rs. 24.45 lacs approximately and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves."
4) The Special Court after analyzing the material on record and after hearing the parties, framed charge for offences under Section 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of J&K PC Act, Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B RPC against the petitioner and the co-accused in terms of its order dated 07.11.2016.
5) The petitioner has challenged the order of sanction and the order of framing charge on the grounds that the order of sanction is ex-facie without any sanction of law; that the allegations in the FIR pertain to the period from 2012 to June, 2013, whereas the petitioner was posted as Deputy Director General, DDK, Srinagar, from 2008 to 07.07.2011 and, as such, he cannot be held responsible for fraudulent payments which have taken place when he was not at the helm of affairs; that as per the statement of PW Gulab-ud-din Tahir, the payments were made well after the petitioner had demitted the office and in spite of this, petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case; that the learned Special Judge while framing charges against the petitioner has ignored the aforesaid aspects of the case and, as such, MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT 2021.09.29 10:14 the order framing charge has no sanction of law; that there is no I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8 CRMC No.24/2017 material on record of the charge sheet to show that the petitioner was involved in the alleged conspiracy, as such, the learned Special Judge was not justified in framing charge for offence under Section 120-B RPC against the petitioner; that the impugned FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom are mala fide and a weapon of persecution and harassment against the petitioner and that the material on record does not disclose commission of any offence against the petitioner.
6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case including the trial court record.
7) The allegations against the petitioner in the charge sheet, in brief, are that while being posted as Deputy Director General, DDK, Srinagar, during the period May, 2008 to 7th July, 2011, he approved four programmes namely, Tote Gov Koal", "Rood Kaya Baqi", "Ghar Se Bollywood Tak" and "Rum Gayam Sheeshas", against the norms without raising any queries with regard to the proposal submitted by accused Ghulam Mohi-ud-din, which did not disclose the relevant details regarding requisition pertaining to services of DDK camera men, camera, lighting facilities, editing, sound recording and other facilities from Engineering/camera section of DDK, Srinagar, which are required during pre or post production stages of the programmes. It is alleged that this act/omission of the petitioner facilitated issuance of account payees' cheques in the name of fake/fictitious MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT 2021.09.29 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 9 CRMC No.24/2017 artists/participants and release of Government funds in their favour, thus causing wrongful loss to the Government exchequer to the tune of Rs.24.45/ lacs approximately and corresponding wrongful gain to the accused including the petitioner.
8) It has been vehemently contended by learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that, admittedly, petitioner was posted as Deputy Director General, DDK, Srinagar, from the year 2008 to July, 2011, whereas, in terms of FIR, the allegations pertain to the year 2012 and 2013 when the petitioner was not in picture at all, thus, it cannot be said that any offence is made out against the petitioner. It has been further contended that even if it is assumed that the petitioner had accorded approval to the programmes which were under scrutiny during investigation, still then the payments pertaining to these programmes were made when the petitioner was not at the helm of affairs and, as such, no offence can be said to have been made out against the petitioner and that the learned Special Judge was not justified in framing charge against the petitioner.
9) Before testing the merits of the contention raised by the learned Senior counsel, it is necessary to notice the legal position as regards the features which are required to be taken into account by a Court while framing charge against an accused in a case as also the scope of power of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr. P. C to interfere with the order of framing charge.
MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT2021.09.29 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 10 CRMC No.24/2017
10) The Supreme Court had an occasion to consider both these questions in the case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and another, (2012) 9 SCC 460. The Court has, after noticing the provisions contained in Section 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which relate to framing of charge against an accused, observed as under:
"17. Framing of a charge is an exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court in terms of Section 228 of the Code, unless the accused is discharged under Section 227 of the Code. Under both these provisions, the court is required to consider the 'record of the case' and documents submitted therewith and, after hearing the parties, may either discharge the accused or where it appears to the court and in its opinion there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, it shall frame the charge. Once the facts and ingredients of the Section exists, then the Court would be right in presuming that there is ground to proceed against the accused and frame the charge accordingly. This presumption is not a presumption of law as such. The satisfaction of the court in relation to the existence of constituents of an offence and the facts leading to that offence is a sine qua non for exercise of such jurisdiction. It may even be weaker than a prima facie case. There is a fine distinction between the language of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code. Section 227 is expression of a definite opinion and judgment of the Court while Section 228 is tentative. Thus, to say that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court should form an opinion that the accused is certainly guilty of committing an offence, is an approach which is impermissible in terms of Section 228 of the Code.
18 xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
19. At the initial stage of framing of a charge, the court is concerned not with proof but with a strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which, if put to trial, could prove him guilty. All that the court has to see is that the material on record and the facts would be compatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The final test of guilt is not to be applied at that stage. We may refer to the well settled law laid down by this Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh (1977) 4 SCC 39:
"4. Under Section 226 of the Code while opening MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT 2021.09.29 10:14 the case for the prosecution the Prosecutor has got I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 11 CRMC No.24/2017 to describe the charge against the accused and state by what evidence he proposes to prove the guilt of the accused. Thereafter comes at the initial stage the duty of the Court to consider the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and to hear the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in that behalf. The Judge has to pass thereafter an order either under Section 227 or Section 228 of the Code. If "the Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing", as enjoined by Section 227. If, on the other hand, "the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which-- ... (b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused", as provided in Section 228. Reading the two provisions together in juxtaposition, as they have got to be, it would be clear that at the beginning and the initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. It is not obligatory for the Judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under Section 227 or Section 228 of the Code. At that stage the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The presumption of the guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage is not in the sense of the law governing the trial of criminal cases in France where the accused is presumed to be guilty unless the contrary is proved. But it is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the Court should proceed with the trial or not. It the evidence which the MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT 2021.09.29 10:14 Prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 12 CRMC No.24/2017 the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial. An exhaustive list of the circumstances to indicate as to what will lead to one conclusion or the other is neither possible nor advisable. We may just illustrate the difference of the law by one more example. If the scales of pan as to the guilt or innocence of the accused are something like even, at the conclusion of the trial, then, on the theory of benefit of doubt the case is to end in his acquittal. But if, on the other hand, it is so at the initial stage of making an order under Section 227 or Section 228, then in such a situation ordinarily and generally the order which will have to be made will be one under Section 228 and not under Section 227."
11) From a perusal of the afore-quoted ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, it is clear that at the time of framing of charge even a strong suspicion against an accused would justify framing of charge. The Court at this stage is not required to see whether the accused can be finally held guilty of the offence but it has to see whether there exist sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. The Court has to see whether, on the basis of material on record, ingredients constituting the alleged offences are, prima facie, made out. For this limited purpose, sifting of evidence is permissible but probative value of the material brought on record by the prosecution cannot be gone into at this stage. Though in the instant case the procedure prescribed for trial of warrant cases has to be followed by the Special Judge, yet for the purpose of framing of charge in terms of Section 251-A(3) of J&K Cr. P. C (corresponding to Section 240 of Central Code) or in terms of Section 269 of the J&K Cr. P. C MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT 2021.09.29 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 13 CRMC No.24/2017 (corresponding to Section 228 of Central Code), the considerations are similar. Thus, ratio laid down in afore-quoted judgment of Supreme Court is fully applicable to the instant case.
12) In the same judgment, the Court also examined the scope of power of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr. P. C to interfere with an order framing a charge. The Court, after noticing the scope and power of revision vis-à-vis scope of inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr. P. C, made certain observations. Paras 18 and 25 of the judgment are relevant to the context and the same are reproduced as under:
"18. It may also be noticed that the revisional jurisdiction exercised by the High Court is in a way final and no inter court remedy is available in such cases. Of course, it may be subject to jurisdiction of this court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Normally, a revisional jurisdiction should be exercised on a question of law. However, when factual appreciation is involved, then it must find place in the class of cases resulting in a perverse finding. Basically, the power is required to be exercised so that justice is done and there is no abuse of power by the court. Merely an apprehension or suspicion of the same would not be a sufficient ground for interference in such cases.
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
25.Having examined the inter-relationship of these two very significant provisions of the Code, let us now examine the scope of interference under any of these provisions in relation to quashing the charge. We have already indicated above that framing of charge is the first major step in a criminal trial where the Court is expected to apply its mind to the entire record and documents placed therewith before the Court.MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT 2021.09.29 10:14
Taking cognizance of an offence has been stated I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 14 CRMC No.24/2017 to necessitate an application of mind by the Court but framing of charge is a major event where the Court considers the possibility of discharging the accused of the offence with which he is charged or requiring the accused to face trial. There are different categories of cases where the Court may not proceed with the trial and may discharge the accused or pass such other orders as may be necessary keeping in view the facts of a given case. In a case where, upon considering the record of the case and documents submitted before it, the Court finds that no offence is made out or there is a legal bar to such prosecution under the provisions of the Code or any other law for the time being in force and there is a bar and there exists no ground to proceed against the accused, the Court may discharge the accused. There can be cases where such record reveals the matter to be so predominantly of a civil nature that it neither leaves any scope for an element of criminality nor does it satisfy the ingredients of a criminal offence with which the accused is charged. In such cases, the Court may discharge him or quash the proceedings in exercise of its powers under these two provisions.
13) From a careful analysis of the aforesaid ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, it is clear that if upon considering record of the case the Court finds that no offence is made out or there is a legal bar to prosecution against the accused, then only interference in the order of framing charge is warranted and the accused may be discharged.
14) With the aforesaid legal position in mind, let us now analyze the material on record so as to test the merits of contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the charge framed against the petitioner is groundless. As per the allegations in the charge sheet, four programmes, which were subject matter of investigation, were approved by the petitioner when he was at the helm of affairs. This MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT 2021.09.29 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 15 CRMC No.24/2017 has not been disputed during the course of arguments. The only contention of the petitioner is that the payments in respect of these programmes were released when he was not at the helm of affairs.
So far as the approval of these programmes is concerned, it is the contention of the prosecution that the same was done by the petitioner against the norms.
15) We have on record state of PW Parvez Sajad, according to whom the serial "Rom Gayam Sheeshas" was prepared in May-June, 2009, but its approval was granted by the petitioner on March 11, 2011. As per norms, a programme must be prepared after grant of approval and not prior to it. Thus, prima facie, this norm has been breached by the petitioner.
16) Then we have statement of PW Ghulam Nabi Teli, which reveals that the Proposal Register in respect of the programmes "Rood Kaya Baqi" and "Rum Gayam Sheeshas" records the approval of the petitioner on 11.03.2011 whereas the date of dubbing and telecast of these programmes as appearing on the said Register is 28.10.2010 onwards, meaning thereby that the approval was granted by the petitioner after about six months of preparation of these programmes, which is completely contradictory to the standards and norms followed by the DDK, Srinagar, and other Kendras.
17) Then we have statement of PW Vaqar Ahmad Sidiqee recorded MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT 2021.09.29 10:14 under Section 161 Cr. P. C. He has made similar statement as regards I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 16 CRMC No.24/2017 the programmes "Rood Kaya Baqi" and "Rum Gayam Sheeshas" by stating that these programmes were accorded approval by the petitioner after their preparation and there was no prior approval which is against the norms. It is stated that the dubbing of these programmes took place on 25.09.2010 onwards whereas approval was granted by the petitioner on 14.03.2011.
18) From the analysis of aforesaid material on record, prima facie, it appears that the petitioner is involved in accord of approval to the aforesaid four programmes and this has been done by him against the standard norms. So, the mere fact that payments in respect of these programmes may have been made after the petitioner had demitted the office, does not absolve him of his acts and omission which he had done when he was at the helm of affairs. Had the petitioner adhered to the norms of approving the programmes before their actual preparation and insisted upon all the requisite details pertaining to facilities required for these programmes and other details, it would not have been possible for the other accused to commit the crime. The petitioner, therefore, appears to be a partner in the crime.
19) There is also material on record in the shape of statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C to show that during the scrutiny of contracts pertaining to the aforesaid four programmes, it was found that only titles of these programmes figured in the Transmission Log Book/Cue Sheets of the Kendra on the basis of MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT 2021.09.29 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 17 CRMC No.24/2017 which authenticity/genuineness of the payees/participants of these programmes could not be confirmed due to non-availability of the details of the same. This means that during the tenure of the petitioner even the records were not being maintained properly. This lacuna paved the way for making payments in favour of bogus and fictitious persons. Besides this, the charge sheet contains a specific allegation that in the matter of preparation of programme "Tote Gov Koal", petitioner in connivance with accused Ghulam Mohi-ud-din had approved payments amounting to Rs.8,97,600/ in the proposal and contract register. Similarly, in respect of programme "Rum Gayam Sheeshas" there is an allegation that the petitioner approved payment of Rs.5,67,000/ in the proposal/contract register.
20) In the face of aforesaid overwhelming material on record of the charge sheet against the petitioner, it can by no stretch of imagination be said that the charge against the petitioner is groundless or that there has been any non-application of mind on the part of sanctioning authority while passing the impugned order of sanction against the petitioner. On the other hand, the material on record clearly delineates the role of the petitioner in the alleged crime. Therefore, there was sufficient material before the Special Judge to proceed against the petitioner and to frame charge against him.
21) For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit in this petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT 2021.09.29 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 18 CRMC No.24/2017
(Sanjay Dhar) Judge Srinagar 28.09.2021 "Bhat Altaf, PS"
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT
2021.09.29 10:14
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document