Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 584 (JK)

Mohd. Rajab Gojri v. State of J&K

2018-07-31

M.K.HANJURA

body2018
JUDGMENT : M.K. Hanjura, J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 3rd of June, 2017 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Srinagar, whereby he has been charged for the commission of an offence under Section 5(2) of J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, Svt. 2006 r/w. Sections 420, 120-B RPC, chiefly on the ground that he has not been heard by the Court below which is violative of the principles of natural justice. 2. The answering respondents in their parawise report have stated that the Court has heard both the parties i.e. defense as well as the prosecution and has passed the order dated 03.06.2017 after due application of mind. It is also stated that there is sufficient material available on record which prima-facie points towards the involvement of the accused in the commission of offence for which he has been charged. The petitioner wants to give slip to the process of law to save himself from its clutches and also to avoid possible conviction. He wants to consume time as he is an influential person and can utilize all his resources to win over the prosecution witnesses. 3. Heard and considered. 4. The petition of the petitioner appears to be devoid of any merit and substance. The contention of the petitioner that he was not heard by the Court below while passing the order dated 03.06.2017 by which he was charged for the commission of the aforesaid offences is belied, from the perusal of the order of the Trial Court itself. This order in unequivocal terms states that Mr. Gazanfar Ali, Advocate represented the Accused No. 1 and Mr. Nisar Ahmad, Advocate appeared for the Accused No. 2 on the date when the order was passed. The law is that presumption of truth is attached to the judicial proceedings particularly, qua the presence of the parties, and, therefore, the order dated 03.06.2017 cannot be called in question on that count. It is presumed to be correct as a sequel to which, the petition of the petitioner entails dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. 5. The record of the Trial Court shall be sent back to the Court below and the Court below shall proceed against the accused in accordance with the law. 6. Disposed of accordingly.