- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) On discovering that there had been embezzlement worth crores of rupees, by way of misappropriation and misutilisation of Government funds meant for purchase of food grains and other essential commodities by the employees of Jammu and Kashmir Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. (Jakfed for short), the Commissioner/Secretary to the Government, Agriculture Production Department filed a complaint with the Crime Branch of the Police in 1994. FIR 40/1994 came to be registered on the basis thereof. Subsequently, the complaint/FIR was transferred to the vigilance Organisation by the Government and the Vigilance Department registered FIR No.3/95 on its basis for offences under Section 5(2) PCA and some other offences under the RPC and took up the investigation in hand. During the preliminary stage of investigation by the Vigilance Department, the respondents filed a writ petition in the High Court for quashing of FIR 3/95 and as interim relief sought the stay of investigation into the criminal case. Notice was issued and the learned single Judge also passed an ex parte order staying further investigation till the 'next date'. The State, appellant herein, filed a counter to the writ petition as well as objections to the stay petition.
(3.) On 12-7-95 the writ petition came up for hearing before the learned single Judge. Request for adjournment of the case was made on behalf of the learned counsel for the writ petitioners, which appears to have been opposed on behalf of the State. The hearing of the writ petition was adjourned. Since, the earlier stay order was to last till the 'next date', arguments were, however, heard on the question of extension of the stay order. The learned single Judge after taking into account the objections and arguments raised at the bar was pleased to refuse extension and he vacated the stay order dated 27-5-95. During the course of the order, the learned single Judge observed: "This is a matter where an unusual relief is being claimed by the petitioners for staying the very investigation in an FIR which involves commission of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Penal Code. In my view, the extension of the stay order passed on 26th May 1995, by which investigation process in the FIR was ordered to be stayed, is likely to defeat the ends of justice and the purpose for which the FIR was lodged. The process of investigation relating to the commission of serious offences cannot, in the ordinary course be allowed to be stalled. It is always however, open to a party, at a stage after the completion of the investigation that he may approach a Court of competent jurisdiction for an appropriate relief, if he feels that he is aggrieved in any manner by the result of the investigation. It is because of the aforesaid reasons that, even while I propose to adjourn the case because of the request of Shri Mohd. Aslam Bhat, I am not inclined to extend the further operation of the interim directions of this Court dated 26th May, 1995. In that view of the matter, therefore, I direct that the aforesaid interim directions shall stand vacated forthwith". ;