New Delhi: The Jammu and Kashmir high court has slammed the J&K Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) for “surrendering” before “unscrupulous corrupt persons in the system” by delaying investigation into corruption cases for decades.
A division bench has held that files pertaining to corruption probes “apparently move from one office to another and then to the central office with different queries like a shuttlecock”. Everyone knows that the shuttlecock has a life and once that is over, it becomes worthless, it added.
Referring to data furnished by the ACB in response to the high court’s directions, the bench observed that in the Srinagar province, there were cases pending for sanction of prosecution for more than two years. “Apparent reason for sleeping over these matters is connivance with the accused. As a result, the conduct of these officers also need to be examined for abetting the crime and not letting the investigation reach the logical end,” it said.
ET has seen a copy of the strictures and directions passed by the division bench during the resumed hearing of a public interest litigation on protracted investigations in corruption cases.
The court observed that the investigating agency and government departments involved in alleged corruption cases were “apparently, all co-sharers in the loot”. Hence, any cooperation in investigation cannot be to their benefit, it said, adding that the investigating agency had apparently surrendered before these “unscrupulous corrupt persons in the system”, who had either been directly arrayed as an accused in the FIR or conniving in not letting the investigation completed.
Giving instances of delays, the court said: “In FIRs registered way back in the year 2008 under the Prevention of Corruption Act pertaining to the industries department , the current status of the investigation is mentioned as ‘posting details of the accused are being ascertained and some record is being obtained’.”
That shows, according to the court, in the last 12 years even this information from the relevant record could not be procured by the investigating agency. “It shows either unwillingness or incompetence and connivance of the persons at the helm of the affairs, also cannot be ruled out,” it added.
Mentioning another FIR recorded in 2009, the high court said: “After more than a decade, the status is that the case has been concluded and the final report is under preparation. There cannot be any possible explanation for keeping the investigation pending for more than a decade. The benefit of that always goes to the accused. Anyone can imagine the result of a trial, investigation of which takes decades. This may be the apparent object. This only shows that there is no responsibility or accountability of any officer.”
Referring to another corruption case involving a former minister, the bench said the matter had been “put under the carpet apparently for the reason that high officials are involved. Such a system will certainly shatter the faith of the public in the investigating agency … In many of the cases, with the passage of time, the accused have retired. Maybe investigations were kept pending to wait for that eventuality”.
The court further said: “There are a number of cases in which FIRs have been lodged way back in the year 2009, 2012 and 2013 but the unfortunate state of affairs would be evident from the fact that sanction for prosecution has been sought in the years 2017, 2018 and 2020, respectively.”
It added: “The oldest FIRs pending for investigation pertains to the year 1998. The excuse given is that the relevant information is not being furnished by the offices concerned, as if the investigating agency is helpless against the accused or the persons who are conniving and siding with the accused.”
The bench observed that “this is one of the reasons that corruption is rampant, as everyone knows that even if a case is registered, the same will not be taken to its logical conclusion for decades”.
Passing strictures against the ACB, the bench remarked: “The manner in which FIRs with serious offences are being taken up does not inspire confidence. In case the Anti-Corruption Bureau is facing difficulty on account of incompetence to investigate these FIRs, the court be apprised of the same so that alternative means can be explored to ensure that these cases are brought to the logical end at the earliest and not buried under the carpet”.
