Court Acquits Former PDP Minister Naeem Akhtar in Six-Year-Old Corruption Case

SRINAGAR, Sept 2: Senior PDP leader and former minister Naeem Akhtar Andrabi, along with two former officials of the J&K Projects Construction Corporation (JKPCC), has been acquitted by a special anti-corruption court here in a case registered against them six years ago.

Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Surinder Singh, in a 27-page order passed on August 29, discharged the trio after finding the charges “groundless.”
“No case for framing of charge against the accused is made out…accused shall stand discharged accordingly. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged,” the judge said, underlining that a criminal court cannot merely act as a “post office” or a “mouthpiece of prosecution.”

The case dates back to 2019, when the Crime Branch of J&K Police filed an FIR under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act against Akhtar, then JKPCC managing director Vikar Mustafa Shonthu, and company secretary Neeru Chadha. The FIR followed a government fact-finding report that termed Shonthu’s 2018 appointment as “illegal” and in “gross violation” of rules.

After the fall of the PDP-BJP government in June 2018, the then administration had referred the matter to the Crime Branch, eventually leading to a chargesheet in 2021 with government sanction for prosecution.

However, in its ruling, the court observed that the evidence on record did not indicate that Akhtar or the other accused had adopted corrupt means or abused their positions for personal gain.
“The material on record would nowhere show any iota of evidence, direct or circumstantial, to satisfy the court that there was a prior meeting of minds between the accused persons,” the judge said, noting that suspicion or inference cannot replace proof in criminal law.

The court further stated that improper administrative action or deviation from departmental norms cannot by itself amount to a criminal offence unless backed by cogent evidence of corruption or conspiracy.

Calling charges without sufficient evidence a violation of fundamental rights, the court concluded that there was “no chance of conviction” even if all the prosecution evidence was accepted as it stood, and therefore discharged the accused from all allegations.