Mere Violation Of Departmental Norms Without Dishonest Intention To Obtain Pecuniary Advantage Not Criminal Misconduct: J&K High Court

While quashing the order of framing charges against the petitioners under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the J&K High Court observed that there was no whisper in the chargesheet and no material on record annexed to the chargesheet to even remotely suggest that the petitioner had obtained any pecuniary advantage or a valuable thing, either for themselves or for any other person, even though the same had caused loss to the State Exchequer.

Court further observed that the material on record, at best, shows that that the petitioners have not adhered to the Departmental norms and technical guidelines while executing the project. The court pointed out that these violations are not enough unless the same is accompanied with dishonest intention to gain some pecuniary advantage for themselves and others.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar also pointed out that it was not the case of the respondents that Petitioners have gained some material advantage nor have the respondent impleaded private contractors as party, who could have in such circumstance gained any pecuniary advantage in view of the malfeasance by the petitions. In view of these facts, charges under section 5(1)(d) of J&K prevention of corruption act for criminal misconduct cannot be made out.

BACKGROUND:

The case against the petitioners is that while executing the project relating to construction of RCC bridge at Utter Behani, they have not conducted prior investigation on certain technical aspects and project was required to be vetted by Designs Directorate. The failure to follow these procedures has resulted in collapsing of the bridge and consequent loss to the State exchequer.

The court held that even if all the material collected against the Petitioners are taken as true on the face and allegations incorporated therein is also taken as accepted, even then charges under section 5(1)(d) or any other charge for that matter is not made out. The non-adherence can at best give rise to departmental inquiry but not the criminal prosecution.

The court dismissed the appeal and accordingly quashed the order of framing the charge against the Petitioners.

Appearance:

Ayushman Kotwal , Advocate for Petitoiners.

Monika Kohli Sr. AAG for respondent.

Case Title: Dalip Thusu and anr vs Union Territory of J&K, 2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 23

Click Here To Read/Download Order