SRINAGAR: A sessions court here Saturday stayed a magisterial court’s order allowing framing of charges against National Conference (NC) president Dr Farooq Abdullah in the Jammu and Kashmir Cricket Association (JKCA) scam case.Hearing a revision petition by Farooq, the additional sessions judge ordered the operation of a chief judicial magistrate’s March 2 directive, and the subsequent proceedings initiated by the trial magistrate on March 30, to be kept in abeyance till the next date of hearing. The court issued notice to CBI, and listed the matter for hearing on May 5.On March 2, the CJM court held that prima facie, evidence existed against Farooq and other accused in the case, observing that “the essential ingredients of offences under sections 120-B, 406 and 409 of the Ranbir Penal Code are made out”. Farooq, appearing virtually before the trial court on March 30, pleaded “not guilty”.CBI had filed a chargesheet against the NC president and others in 2018, alleging the siphoning of about Rs 43 crore from funds provided by BCCI to JKCA. The agency said the funds were misappropriated between 2002 and 2011, when Farooq was JKCA president. The chargesheet named him along with then JKCA general secretary Mohammad Saleem Khan, former treasurer Ahsan Ahmad Mirza and J&K Bank executive Bashir Ahmad Misgar.In his revision petition, Farooq submitted that he held an honorary role as JKCA president and was not involved in day-to-day financial administration which, he said, was vested in the treasurer and the general secretary. A routine administrative signature on a 2008 resolution could not be construed as evidence of a “meeting of minds” for alleged embezzlement, he argued.The sessions court in its order observed that framing of charges is a “major step” in a criminal trial with implications for a person’s reputation and liberty. Allowing proceedings to continue during the pendency of the revision petition could render the challenge infructuous and cause irreparable harm, it said.The court said at the interim stage, it is not required to conduct a “roving inquiry” into the merits, but only to determine whether a prima facie case for intervention is made out. “Given the complexity of the legal issues raised regarding vicarious liability in criminal law and the absence of any document bearing the applicant’s signature on the disputed vouchers and cheques relied upon by the prosecution, the balance of convenience shifts in favour of the applicant,” the court stated.
