"Law has to prevail sooner or later": After two decades, Jammu Court revives proceedings in Excise Scam case [Read Order]

An Additional Sessions Court at Jammu has revived 24-year old criminal proceedings filed in the Excise Scam that caused substantial losses to the Jammu & Kashmir exchequer back in 1995-96 (State/U.T through Police Station, Crime Branch, Jammu v. Hans Raj Mangotra and others). .An order to this effect has been passed by the Additional Session judge Jammu, Tahir Khurshid Raina on Wednesday. .He has also held that there is no scope for the discharge of the ten surviving accused as prima facie, the offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 120B of the Penal Court were made out against them..Confusion between which of two FIRs filed in the matter would have to continue had led to parallel stay orders and the stalling of proceedings for years on end. Putting an end to this, the Court has now revived the first case filed in the matter by the crime branch, Jammu.."... the charge sheet based on FIR No. 8 of 1996 stands revived , will now see the light of the day after remaining in deep slumbers for a long time ... a message must travel across the society that law has to prevail sooner or later and no one can escape from the clutches of law, for all times to come , provided he is alive."ADJ Tahir Khurshid Raina.Rejecting arguments made by the accused in the case against the revival of the FIRs in the matter on technical grounds, the Judge said, .“Being repository of public trust and justice this court will not allow injustice to survive on flimsy technical grounds, rather will make all possible efforts within the four corners of the law, as prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure, to unfold what is contrary there in the charge sheet, which did not get chance to be opened in the temple of justice for last 24 years.”.He also observed that, "... what's unfortunate is that the stage of unveiling the crime and charging the accused for commission of offences has come so late that in the meantime six out of sixteen accused have died and thus did not get exposed to the writ of law." .What is the Excise Scam?.JS Modi, the then Deputy Commissioner Excise, Jammu alleged cheating by partners of the firm M/S Kuldeep Singh & Co., who were engaged to supply country liquor which was being auctioned off in 1995-6 by the Excise Department..M/S Kuldeep Singh & Co had been alloted a contract amounting to Rs 13,23,00,000 for the supply to six groups in Jammu..It was alleged that the firm's partners, in connivance with officials of Excise Department and Government Treasuries, had cheated the government of an amount of Rs. 97,50,000 by tampering with treasury and bank receipts, causing huge loss to the State exchequer..The two FIRs lodged.Modi's complaint led to the registration of the first FIR in the case by the Crime Branch of the Police. .Subsequently, when the probe indicated that Modi and others in the Excise Department were complicit in the scam, a second FIR was lodged by the Vigilance Organisation. .Notably, the second FIR was lodged on the High Court's directions after it observed during the course of a bail order that the role of the Excise officials had not been investigated..The chargesheet filed against 16 accused persons by the Crime Branch (first FIR) was committed by Chief Judicial Magistrate to the Sessions Court, Jammu on September 1996. .The chargesheet filed by the Vigilance Department (second FIR), was committed to the Court of Special Judge Anti Corruption, Jammu in May 1998 against 24 accused persons, including excise officials and JS Modi..How the Excise scam escaped judicial scrutiny for years.To revive the proceedings in the case, the ADJ recalled a 2000 Sessions Court order which had effectively put a legal halt to the proceedings emerging out of the first FIR. ."I deem proper to recall the order dated 10.08.2000 of the Ld. Sessions Court, Jammu “to meet the ends of justice”, to save justice from becoming casualty on account of uncalled for legal technicalities projected by the defence counsels", the Additional Sessions Court said on Wednesday..The Sessions Court had halted the first FIR on the premise that a second FIR filed by the Vigilance department in the matter superseded the first FIR..On March 16, 2005, on a petition filed by JS Modi, the High Court quashed the second FIR as well as the sanction accorded by the government for his prosecution. It was quashed on the ground that both FIRs dealt with the same charges. .The Vigilance Court proceeded to truncate the proceedings before it and discharge the accused citing the pendency of the first FIR. The Vigilance Court further observed that the dismissal of the second FIR would revive the first FIR, and sent back the records to the Sessions Court. .The Sessions Court, in turn, chose to refer to records to the High Court in November 2016, where it remained pending for close to four years. .Would be a travesty of Justice if Excise Scam escapes scrutiny: ADJ.Reviving the Excise Scam case, the ADJ said, ."What a travesty of justice it will be, when a much publicised scam of its times called Excise Scam, caused huge loss to the state exchequer, played deception with the people and Govt of the State , will get escaped from the scrutiny of law, simply on flimsy grounds...".The Court emphasised that the earlier orders of the Court would have to be viewed in context, noting that the principle underlying the earlier orders were only to avoid parallel proceedings. .The Court ultimately concluded that "the first charge sheet stand revived, deserves to be addressed as a fresh charge sheet in the Court of law.".".... instead of putting last nail in the coffin, as desired by defence to give legal death to the first chargesheet, this Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, has decided to bring out the corpse out of the coffin for its legal postmortem, to pinpoint the culpability of the accused, if the material on record indicted them so prima facie and also sustained on the settled principle's of law governing the field.".The case has been put up for framing of charges against the accused on November 19, 2020..Read the order: