FIRDOUS AHMAD
SRINAGAR, Sep 3: A Special Anti-Corruption Court in Srinagar has dismissed the corruption case against former Jammu and Kashmir Works Minister and JKPCC Chairman Naeem Akhter Andrabi, former General Manager Vikar Mustafa Shonthu, and former Company Secretary Neeru Chadha, holding that the allegations were “groundless” and that the officials did not fall within the definition of “public servants” under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The judgment, running into 27 pages, discharged the accused at the stage of framing of charges and cancelled their bail bonds, marking the end of proceedings initiated through FIR No. 10/2019.
The case had been registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau over allegations that Shonthu was illegally placed as Managing Director of the Jammu and Kashmir Projects Construction Corporation (JKPCC) by Order No. 01 of 2018 issued on March 2, 2018 by then Chairman Naeem Akhter Andrabi. The prosecution alleged that the appointment was not routed through the proper establishment section, was never endorsed in official records, and was later rejected by the Board of Directors. Despite this, investigators claimed that the minutes of the 93rd Board of Directors meeting held in May 2018 were manipulated to record Shonthu’s confirmation as Managing Director. It was further alleged that Company Secretary Neeru Chadha facilitated the process by forwarding communications to the Registrar of Companies to secure a Director Identification Number (DIN) for Shonthu, despite his not being formally appointed as Director by the competent authority.
The chargesheet filed by the Crime Branch accused the trio of acting in conspiracy and abusing their positions to project Shonthu as the Managing Director. The allegations included that Shonthu had drawn House Rent Allowance (HRA) and rent reimbursements amounting to ₹2.88 lakh in his capacity as MD JKPCC, which investigators said caused pecuniary loss to the state exchequer. A government-appointed fact-finding committee constituted in November 2018 had also termed the appointment “illegal and in gross violation” of rules, pointing to inconsistencies between the original order, the agenda items placed before the Board of Directors, and the final order issued by the Company Secretary.
Arguing for Shonthu, Advocate Syed Faisal Qadri submitted that JKPCC was a private company incorporated under the Jammu and Kashmir Companies Act of 1977 and not a statutory body created by or under any Act of the legislature. He contended that its officials could not therefore be treated as “public servants” under Section 21 of the Ranbir Penal Code or under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Qadri further argued that the March 2018 order did not amount to a substantive promotion but merely asked Shonthu to “look after” the work of the Managing Director after the retirement of the incumbent. Shonthu, he pointed out, continued to draw his salary as General Manager and did not receive any charge allowance or higher pay.
Similarly, Senior Advocates Altaf Haqani and another senior counsel appearing for Andrabi told the court that as Company Chairman, Andrabi had issued only a temporary order which could not amount to a criminal offence. They stressed that Company Secretary Neeru Chadha, in forwarding communications to the Registrar of Companies, had merely discharged her statutory duties without dishonest intent or malafide motive.
In its ruling, the court held that the prosecution had failed to establish even a prima facie case. It noted that Shonthu’s assignment was temporary and that he had not been promoted or benefited financially from it. The court found that the “gist” of a corruption offence is dishonest intention to obtain undue pecuniary advantage, and no such intention was evident in this case. It further stated that if the Chairman lacked authority to issue the order, it may have been an irregularity but could not amount to an offence. The allegation of manipulating minutes of the 93rd Board meeting was also rejected, with the court pointing out that secretarial standards required the minutes to be signed only by the Chairman, not by all board members.
On the HRA issue, the court observed that while Shonthu may have wrongly drawn allowances amounting to about ₹1.17 lakh, which could be recovered from him, this did not constitute a criminal offence or establish any nexus between him and the other accused. It concluded that there was not “any iota of evidence, direct or circumstantial,” to prove any conspiracy or prior meeting of minds among the accused.
A decisive part of the judgment was the court’s ruling on the status of JKPCC and its officials. It held that JKPCC, being a company incorporated under the Companies Act, was not a statutory corporation “established” by an Act of the State Legislature. Therefore, its officials, even if deputed from government service, could not be prosecuted as “public servants” under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court emphasised that commercial construction undertaken by JKPCC was a business activity, not a “public duty” in the legal sense intended for collective welfare.
The court referred to settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court of India, including in Dilawar Balu Kurane, Sajjan Kumar, and Soma Chakravarty, that a judge at the stage of framing charges must only see whether grave suspicion exists. If the material raises mere suspicion but not grave suspicion, the accused must be discharged. Applying this standard, the court found that the prosecution evidence did not even establish a prima facie case, let alone grave suspicion.
In a strong observation, the court stated that a criminal court “has not to act as a post office and become a mouthpiece of prosecution,” and that compelling the accused to face trial without sufficient evidence would amount to a violation of their fundamental rights. With this, the court discharged Naeem Akhter Andrabi, Vikar Mustafa Shonthu, and Neeru Chadha from all charges, bringing the case to a close without trial.
