Srinagar, September 2, 2025 : In a significant development, a Special Anti-Corruption Court in Srinagar has discharged senior People’s Democratic Party (PDP) leader and former minister Naeem Akhtar Andrabi along with two former officials of the Jammu and Kashmir Projects Construction Corporation (JKPCC) in a six-year-old corruption case.
Delivering a 27-page order on August 29, Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Surinder Singh, held that the charges filed against the trio were “groundless” and not supported by any credible evidence. The court emphasized that a criminal court “cannot act as a post office or mouthpiece of the prosecution” while deciding whether to frame charges.
Background of the Case
The case dates back to 2019, when the Crime Branch of Jammu and Kashmir Police registered an FIR under various sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC). The accused named in the case included:
-
Naeem Akhtar Andrabi, then Minister for Works and Chairman of JKPCC.
-
Vikar Mustafa Shonthu, then Managing Director, JKPCC.
-
Neeru Chadha, then Company Secretary, JKPCC.
The FIR was lodged after the J&K administration flagged alleged irregularities in the appointment of Shonthu as Managing Director of JKPCC. A government-appointed fact-finding committee in March 2019 had described Shonthu’s appointment in March 2018 as “illegal and in gross violation of rules.”
The case gained political significance as it surfaced shortly after the collapse of the PDP-BJP coalition government in June 2018.
Prosecution’s Stand
In April 2021, the J&K government accorded sanction to prosecute Akhtar and the two officials. The chargesheet alleged that the accused had abused their positions to facilitate Shonthu’s appointment and manipulated procedures of the 93rd Board Meeting of JKPCC.
The prosecution claimed that board members were not properly notified, no formal agenda was prepared, and due process was bypassed. These actions, it was alleged, amounted to misuse of official position and conspiracy under corruption laws.
Court’s Observations
After examining the chargesheet, statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC, and other evidence, the court found no material to support the allegations.
-
The judge observed that while procedural lapses might have occurred, there was no evidence of corrupt intent or wrongful gain for the accused.
-
The court ruled that improper conduct or departmental violations alone cannot be equated with criminal misconduct.
-
Importantly, the court highlighted the absence of “prior meeting of minds” or any circumstantial evidence to prove conspiracy.
Quoting from the order, the court said:
“Calling a person to face charges without sufficient evidence would amount to violation of fundamental rights. When the court is fairly certain that there is no chance of conviction even if all evidence is taken as it is, the accused can be discharged.”
Key Legal Findings
-
No direct or circumstantial evidence to establish conspiracy among the accused.
-
No material showing adoption of corrupt means or abuse of official position.
-
Failure of prosecution to provide cogent, acceptable evidence to substantiate charges.
-
Once corruption charges fell through, connected offences under RPC also could not be sustained.
Verdict
The court concluded that there was no prima facie case against the accused. Consequently, the chargesheet filed in 2021 was dismissed, and all three accused were discharged. Their bail bonds were also ordered to be released.
Significance of the Judgment
The ruling underscores judicial caution in corruption cases, especially in politically sensitive matters. The judgment reiterates that criminal courts must not proceed merely on suspicion or at the behest of prosecution but must base their decisions on legally admissible and credible evidence.
