Authority: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar

Order Date: 28.09.2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioners – Shree Pal Singh (retired Executive Engineer, CPWD, Srinagar), Hardeep Singh, Rakesh Sharma, and Umesh Chandra Tripathi (all former Assistant Engineers, CPWD, Srinagar). Respondent – Central Bureau of Investigation Anti‑Corruption Branch, Srinagar.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Criminal petition seeking quash of charge under Section 4‑H of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006, on the ground that no prior sanction was obtained.
  • Background: The FIR dated 25.07.2017 alleged that the petitioners conspired with contractor M/s Sheikh & Sons to cause wrongful loss to the public exchequer and gain for themselves in connection with a contract to construct a 9.1‑km boundary wall for the Central University of Kashmir, Ganderbal.
  • Contract Details: Contract value Rs 9.38 crore; stipulated commencement 19.05.2013 and completion 11.08.2014. The contractor executed only 16 % of the work by the deadline, and the work was defective.
  • Defective Work: 34 columns (Tulmulla‑to‑Barsoo left side) and 40 columns (prefab area right side) were found defective; two plinth beams (~2.70 m each) were tilted; 7 of 150 wall panels in Tulmulla area were tilted inward.
  • Financial Misconduct: Despite only 16 % completion, the petitioners passed bills for 36 % of the work, amounting to Rs 3.4 crore, which were paid to the contractor through Running Account Bills with false entries in Measurement Books.
  • Charges Framed: Sections 120‑B read with 420 of the RPC, Sections 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, and Section 4‑H of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act.
  • Petitioners' Argument: The charge under Section 4‑H is unsustainable because the sanction order did not expressly mention this offence; a sanction cannot be presumed or enlarged by the Trial Court at the charge‑framing stage.
  • Respondent's Argument: Citing the Coordinate Bench judgment in CRM(M) No. 406/2021, the omission of a specific offence in the sanction order does not vitiate the sanction if the allegations disclose the offence’s ingredients.
  • Court’s Reasoning: The present petition is pari materia with CRM(M) No. 406/2021; the Coordinate Bench held that omission of a specific offence in the sanction order does not invalidate the sanction, relying on Prakash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab (2007) and State of Bihar v. Raj Mangal Ram (2014). The High Court affirmed this view and noted that it cannot overturn a finding of the Coordinate Bench on the same controversy.

Final Outcome

  • The petition is dismissed.
  • The Trial Court is free to proceed with the trial as per law.
  • Any interim directions previously issued are vacated.

Topics: Corruption, Public Works Contract, Judicial Decision