Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Reserved On: 11.03.2026 vs Sho P/S Anti Corruption on 2 April, 2026
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
2026:JKLHC-JMU:954
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CRM(M) No. 448/2019
CrlM No. 1088/2019
Reserved on: 11.03.2026
Pronounced on : 02.04.2026
Uploaded on : 02.04.2026
Whether the operative part or full
judgment is pronounced: Full
Subash Chander Sharma
....Petitioners
Through:- Mr. P.N. Raina, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. J.A. Hamal, Advocate.
V/s
SHO P/S Anti Corruption
Bureau Jammu & Ors.
.....Respondents
Through:- Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG with
Ms. Saliqa Sheikh, Advocate.
\
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
01. The petitioner, through the medium of the present
petition, has challenged orders dated 19.01.2019, 01.06.2019
and 08.06.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge (Anti-
Corruption) Jammu (hereinafter to be referred to as “trial
court”). Vide order dated 19.01.2019, the learned trial court
has directed the investigating agency to deal with the question
as to the involvement or otherwise of the petitioner adequately
in the light of the observations made in the said order. Vide
CRM(M) No. 448/2019 Page 1 of 22
2026:JKLHC-JMU:954
order dated 01.06.2019, the learned trial court has directed
framing of charges for offences under sections 5(1) (d), 5(2) of
J&K PC Act and under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B RPC
against the petitioner and vide order dated 08.06.2019 memo
of charges for afore-noted offences has been framed against
the petitioner.
02. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to filing of the
present petition are that an FIR bearing No. 18 of 2015 for
offences under sections 5(1) (d), 5(2) of J&K PC Act and
Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B RPC came to be registered
by the Police Station, Vigilance Organization, Jammu on the
basis of a preliminary verification during which it was found
that co-accused Riaz Ahmed, the then Patwari Halqa Hakkal,
Satwari Jammu has conspired with other accused including
the petitioner herein to create khasra No. 127/1 in respect of
land measuring 25 kanals situated at village Surya Chak
adjoining to existing khasra No. 127 in the original record of
nakal khasra paimaish to confer undue benefit upon co-
accused Vijay Kumar. It was found that co-accused Riaz
Ahmed has, in connivance with the petitioner, who was posted
as Naib Tehsildar, Record Room, Jammu at the relevant time,
changed the khasra girdawari of State land measuring 25
kanals bearing khasra No. 127/1 situated at village Chak
Surya in the records of the record room. The said co-accused
further made entry in the khasra girdawari in favour of
beneficiary co-accused Vijay Kumar in respect of State land
CRM(M) No. 448/2019 Page 2 of 22
2026:JKLHC-JMU:954
measuring 25 kanals in khasra no. 1 of village Chak Surya. It
was also found that co-accused Riaz Ahmed, the then Patwari
of Halqa Hakkal conspired with co-accused Vijay Kumar and
others and manipulated revenue record of khasra Nos. 1 and
35 of State land in village Daulat Chak measuring 11 kanals
each, as also in respect of land comprised in khasra Nos. 411,
414 and 417 (new) situated at village Ganeshu Chak
measuring 10 kanals and 50 kanals respectively for conferring
undue benefit upon co-accused Vijay Kumar.
03. So far as role of the petitioner is concerned, it was
established that he had remained posted as Naib Tehsildar,
General Record Room from September, 2009 to August, 2012
and he, in connivance with co-accused Patwari Riaz Ahmed
and beneficiary co-accused Vijay Kumar, hatched a criminal
conspiracy and facilitated illegal entry in respect of khasra No.
127 by inserting khasra No. 127/1 in original Masavi for land
measuring 25 kanals situated at village Surya Chak in favour
of co-accused Vijay Kumar. The same stands established from
report of the FSL, according to which, the entry has been made
at later stage with ink of a different shade. It was established
that the petitioner was Naib Tehsildar and custodian of the
revenue record of General Record Room at the time when the
revenue record was manipulated, which was tampered with by
the co-accused Patwari Riaz Ahmed. Thus, the allegation
against the petitioner is that he, in his capacity of Incharge
General Record Room at the time when the revenue record was
CRM(M) No. 448/2019 Page 3 of 22
2026:JKLHC-JMU:954
tampered by co-accused Patwari Riaz Ahmed so as to confer
undue benefit upon beneficiary co-accused Vijay Kumar, has
connived with the other accused.
04. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the
chargesheet was produced before the learned trial court. After
taking cognizance of the offences, the matter was put up for
hearing arguments on the question of charge/discharge of the
accused. At that stage, impugned order dated 19.01.2019
came to be passed by the learned trial court. Vide the said
order, the learned trial court while considering the role of the
petitioner observed that the investigating agency has not
verified as to whether the petitioner was actually holding the
charge of the records personally or whether it was some other
official subordinate to him, who was holding the charge. It
was further observed by the learned trial court that no
investigation has been conducted to verify these aspects of the
matter. In these circumstances, the learned trial court while
deferring the consideration relating to framing of charges,
directed the investigating agency to rectify the lapse on its part
and do the needful in the light of the observations made in the
said order.
05. Pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by the
learned trial court, the investigating agency recorded the
statements of two more witnesses, namely, Sh. Manoj Kumar
Bhat, the then Junior Assistant in General Record Room and
Sh. Subash Chander, the then orderly in the office of Director
CRM(M) No. 448/2019 Page 4 of 22
2026:JKLHC-JMU:954
Land Records. Both these witnesses while making their
statements under Section 161 of the CrPC pointed towards the
involvement of the petitioner in the alleged tampering of the
records by co-accused Patwari Riaz Ahmed. Upon submission
of its report by the investigating agency, the matter was again
considered by the learned trial court on the question of
framing of charges against the accused persons.
06. Vide impugned order dated 01.06.2019, the learned
trial court found that there are grounds for presuming that the
petitioner is also involved in the alleged tampering of the
records by co-accused Patwari Riaz Ahmed and that he has
conspired with the co-accused to confer undue benefit upon
beneficiary co-accused Vijay Kumar. Thus, charges for
offences under sections 5(1) (d), 5(2) of J&K PC Act and
Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B RPC have been framed
against the petitioner.
07. Through the medium of the present petition, the
petitioner has called in question all the aforesaid orders on the
grounds that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever
against the petitioner with regard to his involvement in the
conspiracy. It has been contended that there is no material on
record that the tampering of the record has taken place during
the period when the petitioner was posted as Incharge of the
Record Room. It has been contended that the record was in
the custody of the then Junior Assistant. According to the
petitioner, there is no evidence on record to show as to when
CRM(M) No. 448/2019 Page 5 of 22
2026:JKLHC-JMU:954
the record has been tampered. It has been submitted that the
petitioner was posted in the General Record Room only from
the year 2009 to 2012 and unless it is shown that the
tampering has taken place during this period, it cannot be
stated that he is involved in the conspiracy.
08. It has further been contended that the impugned
order dated 19.01.2019 is not sustainable in law because the
learned trial court has made certain observations in the said
order which tend to show that the court somehow wanted to
implicate the petitioner in the case. It has been further
contended that without there being an order for further
investigation of the case, it was not open to the investigating
agency to record statements of the witnesses under section
161 of the CrPC. It has been also contended that the report
filed by the investigating agency pursuant to impugned order
dated 19.01.2019 is not in the form of a supplementary
challan, as such, the same cannot be considered while framing
charges against the petitioner. It has further been contended
that at the stage of framing of charges after taking cognizance
of the offences, the learned trial court did not have jurisdiction
to direct rectification of any inadequacies in the investigation.
09. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused record of the case.
10. The first issue that needs to be addressed in this
case is as to whether the learned trial court while passing
impugned order dated 19.01.2019 has shown any bias or pre-
CRM(M) No. 448/2019 Page 6 of 22
2026:JKLHC-JMU:954
meditation against the petitioner. Learned Senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently argued
that the learned trial court somehow or the other intended to
implicate the petitioner. According to the learned Senior
counsel, the use of expressions “to bring something on record
enabling the court to infer the existence of conspiracy” in the
impugned order dated 19.01.2019 coupled with the direction
to the investigating agency to do the needful, goes on to show
that the learned trial court had made up its mind to rope in
the petitioner as an accused and to subject him to trial.
11. In order to test the merits of the aforesaid
submission made by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner,
it would be necessary to read the relevant portion of order
dated 19.01.2019 passed by the learned trial court as a whole,
without undertaking hair splitting of the expressions used in
the said order. In this context, it would be apt to notice the
relevant excerpts of order dated 19.01.2019, which are
reproduced as under:
“After hearing the parties for a while and examination of
the seized records and also the material in support of
the charges, it has been observed that accused in-
charge of the records in the General Record-room,
Jammu i.e. accused-2 Subhash Chander has been
arraigned for the single reason that he was holding the
charge of the records office at the relevant time without
further attributing any overt or covert act actually done
by him in furtherance to the conspiracy. It is also not
verified as to whether he was actually holding the
charge of the records personally or was it some other
official(s) subordinate to him as no investigations haveCRM(M) No. 448/2019 Page 7 of 22
2026:JKLHC-JMU:954been done to verify these aspects of the matter.
Admittedly, conspiracies are hatched in privacy behind
closed doors and direct evidence is hardly there; still,
the investigating agency can’t escape from its
responsibility to bring something on record enabling the
court to infer the existence of such a situation objectively
since a criminal conspiracy itself is a substantive
offence punishable under law. Nevertheless, it is clearly
shown that records deposited in the general record room
i.e. Aks Massavi have been tempered about two
decades back, have been tempered in order to justify
the back dated entries in the Girdhwari register which
wouldn’t have been possible without the active
assistance of someone inside.
In the given circumstances, it would not be possible for
this court to formulate any opinion prima facie as to
involvement of accused-2 and hence, charge or
discharge him since the question as to his involvement
or otherwise has not been dealt with adequately during
the investigation. The demand of justice and fair play is
to rectify the lapse on the part of Investigating Officer
whether conscious or otherwise at the earliest and the
matter is still at the very initial stage. The question as
to the framing charge or otherwise is, therefore, deferred
and investigating officer is directed to do the needful in
the light of the observations made hereinabove.”
12. When we take into account and consider the
aforesaid observations of the learned trial court in a holistic
manner, it would come to the fore that the learned trial court
has pointed out certain inadequacies in the investigation.
According to the learned trial court, although there is evidence
on record to show that the petitioner was incharge of records
in the General Record Room, yet he could not be arraigned as
an accused for the said reason alone unless it is shown that he
CRM(M) No. 448/2019 Page 8 of 22
2026:JKLHC-JMU:954
had done any overt or covert act. This clearly shows that the
learned trial court has made a dispassionate analysis of the
material on record. Had it been a case of bias or pre-
meditation against the petitioner, the learned trial court
instead of pointing out this inadequacy to the investigating
agency, would have proceeded to frame charges against the
petitioner only on the basis that he was incharge of the Record
Room at the relevant time. The learned trial court has been at
pains to explain that even though the petitioner may have been
holding the charge of the records, yet it has to be ascertained
whether he was holding the charge personally or it was some
other official subordinate to him, who may have been holding
the immediate custody of the record. It is in this connection
that the learned trial court felt a need to order further
investigation. While reminding the investigating agency of its
responsibility to bring material on record from which existence
of a criminal conspiracy is inferred, the learned trial court has
only tried to point out the aspect on which the investigation
appeared to be deficient.
13. Order dated 19.01.2019 has to be read in the
context that the learned trial court only intended to get the
aspect relating to involvement or otherwise of the petitioner in
the alleged conspiracy properly investigated, leaving it open to
the investigating agency to even investigate the role of any
subordinate official, who may have been actually holding the
custody of the record that was tampered. Thus, by no stretch
CRM(M) No. 448/2019 Page 9 of 22
2026:JKLHC-JMU:954
of reasoning, it can be stated that the learned trial court while
passing the impugned order dated 19.01.2019 exhibited any
bias or pre-determined mind. The argument of the learned
Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner is, therefore, wholly
misconceived.
14. That takes us to the question as to what is the
nature of the order passed by the learned trial court on
19.01.2019. Although in the said order, the learned trial court
has not used the appropriate expression of “further
investigation”, yet the fact of the matter remains that the
learned trial court while passing the aforesaid order meant to
ask the investigating agency to undertake investigation limited
to the aspect of ascertaining the identity of the person(s), who
were actually holding the custody of the record that was
tampered so as to enable the court to proceed against the
person(s), who had actually aided and assisted the co-accused
Patwari in getting hold of the said record at the time when he
tampered with the same. So it can safely be stated that the
direction of the learned trial court was relating to further
investigation of the case.
15. The next question that comes up consideration is
whether a direction for further investigation can be extended
by a Magistrate or a Special Judge after taking cognizance of
the offences at the stage of framing of charges. This issue has
been dealt with by the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Lal
Narang Vs. State (Delhi Administration) (1979) 2 SCC 322.
CRM(M) No. 448/2019 Page 10 of 22
2026:JKLHC-JMU:954
While referring to the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in
its previous judgment titled H.N. Rishbud Vs. State of Delhi,
AIR 1955 (SC) 196, it was held as under:
“17. In H. N. Rishbud v. The State of Delhi, this Court
contemplated the possibility of further investigation even
after a Court had taken cognizance of the case. While
noticing that a police report resulting from an investigation
was provided in Section 190 Criminal Procedure Code as
the material on which cognizance was taken, it was
pointed out that it could not be maintained that a valid and
legal police report was the foundation of the jurisdiction of
the Court to take cognizance. It was held that where
cognizance of the case had, in fact, been taken and the
case had proceeded to termination, the invalidity of the
precedent investigation did not vitiate the result unless
miscarriage of justice had been caused thereby. It was
said that a defect or illegality in investigation, however
serious, had no direct bearing on the competence of the
procedure relating to cognizance or trial. However, it was
observed:
“It does not follow that the invalidity of the
investigation is to be completely ignored by a
Court during trial. When the breach of such a
mandatory provision is brought to the knowledge
of the Court at a sufficiently early stage, the
Court, while not declining cognizance, will have
to take the necessary steps to get the illegality
cured and the defect rectified, by ordering such
re-investigation as the circumstances of an
individual case may call for”. This decision is a
clear authority for the view that further
investigation is not altogether ruled out merely
because cognizance of the case has been taken
by the Court; defective investigation coming to
light during the course of a trial may be cured byCRM(M) No. 448/2019 Page 11 of 22
2026:JKLHC-JMU:954a further investigation, if circumstances permit
it.”
16. From the foregoing analysis of the law on the
subject, it is clear that further investigation is not altogether
ruled out merely because cognizance has been taken by the
court. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment has, in
clear terms, held that when there is defective investigation,
which comes to light during the course of trial, it may be cured
by further investigation if circumstances so warrant.
17. The ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Ram
Lal Narang‘s case (supra) was explained by the Supreme Court
in a later judgment titled Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi Vs.
State of Gujrat, (2004) 5 SCC 347 in the following manner:
“In Ram Lal Narang v State (Delhi Admn.), it was observed
by this Court that further investigation is not altogether ruled
out merely because cognizance has been taken by the Court.
When defective investigation comes to light during course of
trial, it may be cured by further investigation if circumstances
so permitted. It would ordinarily be desirable and all the more
so in this case, that police should inform the Court and seek
formal permission to make further investigation when fresh
facts come to light instead of being silent over the matter
keeping in view only the need for an early trial since an
effective trial for real or actual offences found during course of
proper investigation is as much relevant, desirable and
necessary as an expeditious disposal of the mater by the
Courts. In view of the aforesaid position in law if there is
necessity for further investigation the same can certainly be
done as prescribed by law. The mere fact that there may be
further delay in concluding the trial should not stand on the
way of further investigation if that would help the Court inCRM(M) No. 448/2019 Page 12 of 22
2026:JKLHC-JMU:954arriving at the truth and do real and substantial as well as
effective justice. We make it clear that we have not expressed
any final opinion on the merits of the case.”
18. In VinuBhai HariBhai Malaviya & ors Vs. State of
Gujrat & Anr, (2019) 17 SCC 1, the Supreme Court after
undertaking analysis of its previous judgments on the issue
has explained the range of powers of the police and the
Magistrate as regards investigation and further investigation in
paras 18, 25 and 42 in the following manner:
18. It is clear that a fair trial must kick off only after an
investigation is itself fair and just. The ultimate aim of all
investigation and inquiry, whether by the police or by the
Magistrate, is to ensure that those who have actually
committed a crime are correctly booked, and those who have
not are not arraigned to stand trial. That this is the minimal
procedural requirement that is the fundamental requirement
of Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be doubted. It
is the hovering omnipresence of Article 21 over
the CrPC that must needs inform the interpretation of all the
provisions of the CrPC, so as to ensure that Article 21 is
followed both in letter and in spirit.
25. It is thus clear that the Magistrate’s power under Section
156(3) of the CrPC is very wide, for it is this judicial authority
that must be satisfied that a proper investigation by the police
takes place. To ensure that a “proper investigation” takes
place in the sense of a fair and just investigation by the police
– which such Magistrate is to supervise – Article 21 of the
Constitution of India mandates that all powers necessary,
which may also be incidental or implied, are available to the
Magistrate to ensure a proper investigation which, without
doubt, would include the ordering of further investigation after
a report is received by him under Section 173(2); and whichCRM(M) No. 448/2019 Page 13 of 22
2026:JKLHC-JMU:954power would continue to enure in such Magistrate at all
stages of the criminal proceedings until the trial itself
commences. Indeed, even textually, the “investigation”
referred to in Section 156(1) of the CrPC would, as per the
definition of “investigation” under Section 2(h), include all
proceedings for collection of evidence conducted by a police
officer; which would undoubtedly include proceedings by way
of further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC.
42. There is no good reason given by the Court in these
decisions as to why a Magistrate’s powers to order further
investigation would suddenly cease upon process being
issued, and an accused appearing before the Magistrate,
while concomitantly, the power of the police to further
investigate the offence continues right till the stage the trial
commences. Such a view would not accord with the earlier
judgments of this Court, in particular, Sakiri (supra), Samaj
Parivartan Samudaya (supra), Vinay Tyagi (supra),
and Hardeep Singh (supra); Hardeep Singh (supra) having
clearly held that a criminal trial does not begin after
cognizance is taken, but only after charges are framed. What
is not given any importance at all in the recent judgments of
this Court is Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that
the Article demands no less than a fair and just investigation.
To say that a fair and just investigation would lead to the
conclusion that the police retain the power, subject, of course,
to the Magistrate’s nod under Section 173(8) to further
investigate an offence till charges are framed, but that the
supervisory jurisdiction of the Magistrate suddenly ceases
mid- way through the pre-trial proceedings, would amount to a
travesty of justice, as certain cases may cry out for further
investigation so that an innocent person is not wrongly
arraigned as an accused or that a prima facie guilty person is
not so left out. There is no warrant for such a narrow and
restrictive view of the powers of the Magistrate, particularly
when such powers are traceable to Section 156(3) read
with Section 156(1), Section 2(h), and Section 173(8) of the
CrPC, as has been noticed hereinabove, and would be
available at all stages of the progress of a criminal case before
CRM(M) No. 448/2019 Page 14 of 22
2026:JKLHC-JMU:954
the trial actually commences. It would also be in the interest of
justice that this power be exercised suo motu by the
Magistrate himself, depending on the facts of each case.
Whether further investigation should or should not be ordered
is within the discretion of the learned Magistrate who will
exercise such discretion on the facts of each case and in
accordance with law. If, for example, fresh facts come to light
which would lead to inculpating or exculpating certain
persons, arriving at the truth and doing substantial justice in
a criminal case are more important than avoiding further
delay being caused in concluding the criminal proceeding, as
was held in Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi (supra). Therefore,
to the extent that the judgments in Amrutbhai Shambubhai
Patel (supra), Athul Rao (supra) and Bikash Ranjan
Rout (supra) have held to the contrary, they stand
overruled. Needless to add, Randhir Singh Rana v. State
(Delhi Administration) (1997) 1 SCC 361 and Reeta Nag v.
State of West Bengal and Ors. (2009) 9 SCC 129 also stand
overruled.”
19. From the foregoing analysis of legal position as
regards the power of the Magistrate/Special Court to direct
further investigation in a case where the court is satisfied that
the investigation conducted is defective in nature or certain
aspects of the matter have not been properly investigated, it is
clear that a direction in this regard can be extended even at
the post cognizance stage by taking resort to the provisions
contained in Section 173 (8) read with Section 156(3) of the
CrPC.
20. Applying the aforesaid ratio to the facts of the
present case, it can safely be stated that the learned trial
court, upon observing that there were certain defects or
CRM(M) No. 448/2019 Page 15 of 22
2026:JKLHC-JMU:954
inadequacies in the investigation conducted by the
investigating agency particularly as regards the role of the
custodian of the record, which was tampered, was well within
its powers to direct further investigation of the case on this
aspect of the matter even at the stage of framing of charges.
The jurisdiction exercised by the learned trial court in this
regard cannot be interfered with by this court either in its
revisional jurisdiction or while exercising its inherent powers.
The impugned order dated 19.01.2019 is, therefore, perfectly
in accordance with law and the same does not call for any
interference.
21. Once order dated 19.01.2019 is held to be an order
directing further investigation of the case, the evidence
collected by the investigating agency in the form of statements
of two witnesses, namely, Manoj Kumar Bhat and Subash
Chander cannot be discarded. However, the respondent-
investigating agency has, instead of filing the supplementary
chargesheet in proper form, proceeded to file it in the form of a
report. The course adopted by the investigating agency is not
in accordance with the law. The Supreme Court has, in the
case of Dablu Kujur Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2024) 6 SCC
758, issued clear cut direction that in the case of further
investigation, the police officer Incharge has to forward to the
Magistrate a further report or reports in the form prescribed by
stating all the details that are to be furnished at the time of
filing the initial report under Section 173(2) of CrPC. Thus, the
CRM(M) No. 448/2019 Page 16 of 22
2026:JKLHC-JMU:954
respondent-investigating agency has flouted the mandate of
law in the present case.
22. Nonetheless merely because the material collected
by the investigating agency, pursuant to the directions of this
court for further investigation of the case, has not been sent to
the court in prescribed format, the same cannot be thrown
out. The defect in furnishing the report relating to further
investigation is curable in nature and the investigating agency
can be given an opportunity to rectify the defect by producing
the report of further investigation in the prescribed format.
23. That takes us to the legality and validity of order
dated 01.06.2019 passed by the learned trial court whereby
charges have been framed against the petitioner. Before
undertaking such an exercise, it has to be seen as to what type
of further investigation has been conducted by the
investigating agency pursuant to directions passed by the
learned trial court on 19.01.2019. If we have a look at the
supplementary report dated 20.02.2019 submitted by the
investigating agency before the learned trial court, it is
revealed that they have recorded the statement of Sh. Manoj
Kumar Bhat, who was working as a Junior Assistant and was
the immediate custodian of the record, which is stated to have
been tampered by co-accused Riaz Ahmed, Patwari. The other
statement recorded during further investigation is that of
Sh. Subash Chander, who was working as an Orderly in the
CRM(M) No. 448/2019 Page 17 of 22
2026:JKLHC-JMU:954
office of the Director Land Records at the relevant point of
time.
24. The defence projected by the petitioner in answer to
the questionnaire given to him by the investigating officer
during the course of investigation was that the settlement
record including the record relating to village Surya Chak,
which has been tampered, was under the lock and key of Sh.
Manoj Kumar Bhat, the then Junior Assistant. It was also
stated by the petitioner in answer to the questionnaire that the
tampering seems to have been done by the Patwari before
depositing the record in the record room and before his joining
as Incharge Naib Tehsildar. According to the petitioner, the
record was deposited in the record room on 17.10.1997.
25. It was duty of the Investigating Officer to ascertain
the veracity of the aforesaid defence projected by the petitioner
in answer to the questionnaire. The purpose of undertaking
investigation is not somehow to implicate a person but its
purpose is to unearth the truth. In that direction, it is duty of
the investigating agency to ascertain the veracity of the defence
projected by a suspect. Otherwise, there was no purpose for
the investigating agency to seek answers from the
petitioner/accused to the questions formulated by the
investigating officer. In the facts and circumstances of the
case, it was all the more necessary for the investigating officer
to ascertain the veracity of the defence put up by the petitioner
because the record that had been tampered was in the
CRM(M) No. 448/2019 Page 18 of 22
2026:JKLHC-JMU:954
immediate custody of Sh. Manoj Kumar Bhat, who has been
cited as a prosecution witness. The assertion of Sh. Manoj
Kumar Bhat that record was tampered with the connivance of
the petitioner may or may not be correct but having regard to
the fact that he was immediate custodian of the record, before
placing reliance upon his statement, it was incumbent upon
the investigating agency to ascertain the approximate period
when the insertions/corrections in the revenue record had
taken place. If the insertions/tampering in the revenue record
had taken place during the period when the petitioner was not
incharge of the record room, the assertions of Manoj Kumar
Bhat, as made by him in his statement recorded under section
161 CrPC, could not have been relied upon and the defence
put up by the petitioner would get vindicated.
26. Having regard to the nature of technology that is
presently available with the FSL laboratories, it is quite
possible to determine the approximate age of the
insertion/tampering that has taken place in the revenue
record in the present case. On that basis, the investigating
agency could have taken a cue for undertaking further
investigation of the case. Instead of doing so, the investigating
agency has taken a short cut and recorded statements of two
witnesses, one of whom might be interested in saving his own
skin to lay blame on others.
27. It is interesting to note here that in its order dated
01.06.2019, the learned trial court has, while framing charges
CRM(M) No. 448/2019 Page 19 of 22
2026:JKLHC-JMU:954
against the petitioner noted that there were as many as five
Naib Tehsildars, namely, Vijay Gupta, A.N. Badyal, M.A. Khan
and Ram Dass besides the petitioner during the period when
accused Riaz Ahmed remained posted as Patwari of the
concerned Halqa. It has also been noted by the learned trial
court that one of the Naib Tehsildars, namely, M.A. Khan is a
distant cousin of accused Riaz Ahmed. Inspite of noticing
these facts, the learned trial court has remained satisfied with
the nature of further investigation that was undertaken by the
investigating agency and proceeded to frame charges against
the petitioner.
28. The learned trial court instead of asking the
investigating agency to conduct a proper investigation of the
case in the light of the observations made by it in its impugned
order dated 19.01.2019 has proceeded to frame charges
against the petitioner in terms of impugned order dated
01.06.2019. The course adopted by the learned trial court is
not proper particularly when in its order dated 19.01.2019, the
court had made it clear that adequate material to presume
conspiracy has not been brought on record by the investigating
agency.
29. In the aforesaid circumstances, it can safely be
stated that the investigating agency has, without undertaking
a proper investigation regarding the approximate period when
the tampering in the record has taken place as also with
regard to the defence projected by the petitioner in answer to
CRM(M) No. 448/2019 Page 20 of 22
2026:JKLHC-JMU:954
the questionnaire served upon him, proceeded to submit a half
baked report that too without adhering to the mandate of law
laid down by the Supreme Court in Dablu Kujur‘s case
(supra).
30. In view of what has been discussed hereinbefore,
the impugned order dated 01.06.2019 to the extent of framing
of charges against the petitioner on the basis of a half baked
investigation report of the respondent-investigating agency is
not sustainable in law. The respondent-investigating agency is
duty bound to unearth the truth by conducting the
investigation on all aspects of the matter in the light of the
observations made by the learned trial court in its order dated
19.01.2019. This Court is conscious of the fact that directing
further investigation of the case at this stage would result in
delay in trial but the primary concern for a Court while dealing
with a criminal case is to unearth the truth even if it amounts
to delay in trial. The aim of investigation and inquiry whether
by police or by Magistrate is to ensure that only those persons,
who have actually committed the crime are made to face the
trial and those, who are not involved in the commission of the
crime, are not unnecessarily dragged to face the trial.
Therefore, it is duty of this Court to ensure that further
investigation in the light of the order dated 19.01.2019 passed
by the learned trial court is conducted in an objective manner
to ensure adherence to due process of law as mandated under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
CRM(M) No. 448/2019 Page 21 of 22
2026:JKLHC-JMU:954
31. For what has been discussed hereinbefore, the
petition is disposed of by extending the following directions:
(i) Impugned order dated 19.01.2019 passed by the
learned trial court is upheld;
(ii) Impugned order dated 01.06.2019 and the memo of
charges dated 08.06.2019 to the extent of the
petitioner are quashed;
(iii) The respondent-investigating agency is directed to
undertake further investigation of the case in the light
of the observations made by the learned trial court in
its order dated 19.01.2019 read with the observations
made by this Court hereinebefore;
(iv) The further investigation of the case shall be
conducted by the respondents expeditiously and final
report shall be filed by it before the learned trial court
in the prescribed form as mandated under Section
173 (2) of the Cr.P.C whereafter the question of
framing of charges against the petitioner shall be
considered by the trial court afresh on the basis of the
entire material that may be brought on record by the
investigating agency before the said court.
(SANJAY DHAR)
JUDGE
JAMMU
02.04.2026
Naresh/Secy.
Whether the judgment is speaking: Yes
Whether the judgment is reportable: Yes
CRM(M) No. 448/2019 Page 22 of 22
[ad_1]
Source link
