Anand, respondent in Criminal Appeal No.
64/84, was an employee of Life Insurance Corporation and came to be charged for offences Under Sections.
It was alleged that respondent Dogra was posted as Assistant Divisional Manager of the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co., Jammu.
The respondents in those appeals were prosecuted for the offences punishable Under Sections 120B, 420, 468 and 471 of the Ranbir Penal Code and Section 5 2 of the Jammu Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act in the Court of the Special Judge, Jammu.
The High Court accordingly quashed the entire proceedings pending against the respondents before the Special Judge.
It is alleged that when the second assessor made his report, Sharma prevailed upon him to change it and companyfirm the report of Kohli.
The respondent Sharma was then the Regional Manager of Jupitor Insurance Co. at Ambala.
While working in such capacity he laid a false claim of Rs.
The respondent Kohli, a surveyor, had been deputed to assess the damage and on account of criminal companyspiracy amongst the accused persons, a false report was submitted.
1,355/ against M s. Jupiter Insurance Co., Jammu, with whom a car belonging to the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. had been insured.
Sharma and Jugal Kishore, who were the members of the Claim Committee allowed the claim to the extent of Rs.
When the Special Judge overruled the objection a Criminal Revision was filed before the Jammu Kashmir High Court and following the decision of the Division Bench in the three companynected Criminal Revisions relating to Dogra and others, the decision which is the subject matter of the companynected appeals, a single Judge of the High Court quashed the charge.
As the High Court indicates, the challenge was mainly on two grounds firstly, that the respondents were number public servants within the meaning of Section 21 of the Penal Code prevailing in the State of Jammu Kashmir, and as such they companyld number be prosecuted Under Section 5 2 of the Special Act secondly, there was numberevidence at all to companynect the respondents with the offence charged and that there was numbersanction for prosecution.
When charges were framed, objection was raised before the Special Judge on the ground that Anand was number a public servant and the Special Judge had numberjurisdiction to entertain the case.
Once the Special Act was number attracted, the Special Judge had numberjurisdiction to try the case.
742/ and this amount was paid to Dogra.
The accused persons challenged the tenability of the prosecution on various charges by filing revision petitions before the High Court.
The High Court found that the respondents were number public servants and, as such, they companyld number be tried Under Section 5 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
On these allegations the four respondents were put on trial.
Dogra was using the said car in his official capacity and falsely maintained that it had met with an accident though as a fact numberaccident took place.
Ranganath Misra, J. The first set of three appeals are by special leave and are directed against the companymon judgment of a Division Bench of the Jammu Kashmir High Court in three separate criminal revisions.
When suspicion arose, a fresh assessor was appointed and he reported that the vehicle had number met with any accident.
