HC upholds discharge of Revenue orderly in Rs. 35,000 bribery case, says trial court cannot be prosecution's mouthpiece

11/07/2026

SRINAGAR, Jul 10: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the discharge of a Revenue Department orderly in a Rs. 35,000 bribery case, observing that while considering whether charges are to be framed, a trial court cannot act as a "mouthpiece of the prosecution" and must independently assess whether sufficient material exists to proceed against an accused.
Justice Sanjay Dhar dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir challenging the December 14, 2019 order of the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Baramulla, discharging Manzoor Ahmad Dar in a case arising out of FIR No. 24/2012 registered with the Vigilance Organisation Kashmir.
The case pertained to allegations that Nazir Ahmad Wani, then Office Qanungo, and Syed Shabir Ahmad Andrabi, then Tehsildar, Sumbal Sonawari, had demanded illegal gratification for implementing an order passed by the Joint Financial Commissioner relating to mutation entries of 23.4 kanals of land at Sarie Dangerpora, Tehsil Sonawari.
According to the prosecution, complainant Haji Abdul Aziz Dar was allegedly asked to pay Rs. 40,000, out of which Rs. 35,000 was paid through a bearer cheque that was subsequently encashed by Manzoor Ahmad Dar, an orderly posted in the Tehsil office.
Following investigation, offences under the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 201, 109 and 120-B of the Ranbir Penal Code were alleged against the accused. While the trial court framed charges against Nazir Ahmad Wani and Syed Shabir Ahmad Andrabi, it discharged Manzoor Ahmad Dar.
Senior Additional Advocate General Mohsin Qadiri, assisted by Haaris Khan, appeared for the Union Territory, while Advocate Saniya Qadir represented the respondent.
Justice Dhar observed that although a court is not required to conduct a detailed appreciation of evidence at the stage of framing charges, it is duty-bound to independently examine the material placed before it.
"The Court cannot act as a mouthpiece of the prosecution," Justice Dhar observed while explaining the principles governing the framing of charges.
Examining the record, the Court noted that the complainant had handed over the bearer cheque to a photostat shopkeeper, Muhammad Sultan, on the instructions of Nazir Ahmad Wani, who later deputed Manzoor Ahmad Dar to encash the cheque from J&K Bank, Sumbal.
The High Court found that Dar had handed over the entire amount to Nazir Ahmad Wani and had not retained any portion of the money. It further observed that the complainant had no direct interaction with Dar and had never alleged that he participated in the demand or acceptance of the alleged bribe.
The Court held that there was no material to indicate that Dar was aware the cheque represented illegal gratification or that he had knowingly participated in any criminal conspiracy.
Observing that merely encashing a cheque under the directions of a superior officer did not, by itself, establish criminal intent or complicity, the Court held that the charge against Dar was groundless.
Finding that the Special Judge had correctly appreciated the material collected during investigation and exercised jurisdiction in accordance with law, the High Court dismissed the Union Territory's revision petition and upheld the discharge of Manzoor Ahmad Dar.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty