In what can be seen as relief to the party, its senior PDP leader and former minister Naeem Akhtar Andrabi, along with two former officials of Jammu and Kashmir Projects Construction Corporation (JKPCC), has been fully acquitted by the Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Kashmir, Surinder Singh, in connection with a high-profile corruption case registered six years ago. The judge found the charges “groundless” and ordered dismissal of the chargesheet filed against the trio in 2021.
Akhtar was the Chairman of JKPCC and Works Minister in 2018 when General Manager Vikar Mustafa Shonthu was appointed as the JKPCC MD. The case was registered against Akhtar, Sonthu and JKPCC Company Secretary Neeru Chadha in 2019 after the fall of the then People's Democratic Party (PDP)-Bharatiya Janata Party government.
In the judgement passed on August 29, Special Judge Surinder Singh said that though only the Governor could have appointed the MD, Shonthu was merely given the charge of the post after the retirement of the then MD. Such appointment does not amount to promotion, the Court ruled. “The distinction between a situation where a government servant is promoted to a higher post and one where he is merely asked to discharge the duties of the higher post is too clear to require any reiteration. Asking an officer who substantively holds a lower post merely to discharge the duties of a higher post cannot be treated as a promotion,” the Court said.
The case originated in 2019 when the Crime Branch of Jammu and Kashmir Police registered an FIR against Andrabi, then managing director Vikar Mustafa Shonthu, and then company secretary Neeru Chadha under several sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Ranbir Penal Code. The FIR was prompted by a report from the Jammu and Kashmir administration citing irregularities in Shonthu’s 2018 appointment as managing director of JKPCC by Andrabi, who was chairman of the board at the time. The issue surfaced after a government-appointed fact-finding committee concluded Shonthu’s appointment was “illegal and in gross violation” of established rules.
In its 27-page order delivered on August 29, the court meticulously analysed the available evidence, witness statements, and administrative procedures. Judge Singh stressed that the criminal court “has not to act as post office and become mouthpiece of the prosecution,” emphasising that the mere existence of allegations or procedural discrepancies does not justify framing charges in the absence of concrete material or substantive evidence.
The judgement also highlighted that for criminal conspiracy and other penal charges to stand, there must be actual evidence showing a prior agreement or collusion between the accused. “The material on record would nowhere show any iota of evidence direct or circumstantial to satisfy the court that there was a prior meeting of minds between the accused persons,” Judge Singh wrote, making clear that suspicion and procedural irregularities alone are insufficient grounds for criminal prosecution.
Follow us
