Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 432 (GAU)

Nuruddin Ahmed (MD) v. State of Assam

2017-04-06

AJIT BORTHAKUR

body2017
JUDGMENT & ORDER : Ajit Borthakur, J. Heard Mr. A. Sharif, learned counsel, for the accused - appellants. Also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. This appeal under Section 27 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,(for short ‘PC Act) read with Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been preferred against the judgment & order dated 05.02.2013 passed by the learned Special Judge, Assam. Guwahati, in Special Case No. 03 of 2011 under Section 7 of the PC Act, whereby, each of the appellants was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2(two) years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6(six) months. Prosecution case. Trial and Conviction: 3. The prosecution case, in brief, may be stated thus: On 07.06.2007, the Executive Magistrate Anil Ch. Das of Kaliabor Sub-Division, lodged an ejahar with the Officer-in-Charge of Kaliabor Police Station alleging that as per information given by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kaliabor, the officials of Veterinary Hospital, Kaliabor, while distributing forms of Kalpataru Veterinary schemes were taking money from the beneficiaries and therefore, the local people protested. As per direction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, he proceeded to the place of occurrence and found the Veterinary Field Assistants namely, Abani Pathak, Archad Ali and Md. Nuruddin Ahmed taking illegal gratification from the public. Out of those officials, appellant Nuruddin Ahmed had fled away from the office premises and the two accused appellants were arrested. On the basis of the said ejahar, Kaliabor P.S. Case No. 65/2014 was registered and the case was endorsed to Police Sub-Inspector Debo Chetri for investigation. At the time of apprehension of those three accused appellants, it came to light that the Assistant Veterinary Surgeon Dr. D. K. Behera was also involved in that corrupt practise. During investigation, cash amount of Rs. 4,530/- was recovered from the possession of those veterinary officials. The I.O. on the same day recorded the statement of witnesses and then forwarded the accused appellants to the Court for judicial custody. The competent sanctioning authorities accorded sanction to prosecute those four accused appellants. Thereafter, the I.O. filed charge-sheet against those accused appellants under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988. The I.O. on the same day recorded the statement of witnesses and then forwarded the accused appellants to the Court for judicial custody. The competent sanctioning authorities accorded sanction to prosecute those four accused appellants. Thereafter, the I.O. filed charge-sheet against those accused appellants under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988. On appearance of all the accused appellants, and after complying with the provision of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, charge under Section 7 of the said Act was framed against those accused appellants, namely, Abani Pathak. Archad Ali, Nuruddin Ahmed and Dr. Dhirendra Kumar Behera, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined altogether 12 witnesses whereas the defence has examined 5 witnesses. Statement of accused appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. After completion of trial and hearing the learned counsel of both sides, the learned trial Court held the accused appellants guilty of the charge under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988, and convicted and sentenced them, as above. Evidence of Prosecution Witnesses: 4. Now, let us look to the evidence on record. PW-1 Chandra Sekhar Mishra stated that on 07.06.2007, at about 11.30AM, while he was standing in front of Veterinary Centre at Kuwaritol, there was quarrel among the applicants due to taking of illegal gratification by the office employees and when police arrived, he left the office premises and police took his signature in the Seizure list Ext. 1 at his residence. The said PW-1 was declared hostile by the prosecution. PW-2 Nandalal Upadhayaya has stated that on 07.06.2007 at about 11 AM, he went to the Veterinary Centre at Kuwaritol collect forms for Kalpataru Scheme on behalf of his two elder sisters and when he was standing in the queue to collect the from, there was hue and cry and when one Magistrate arrived there, he left for his house and police took his signature in the seizure list after three days of the incident at his house. PW-2 was declared hostile by the prosecution. PW-3 Pradip Saikia has stated that on 07.06.2007, while he was serving as the Driver of the official vehicle of SDO(C), Kaliabor, he went with the Executive Magistrate Anil Ch. PW-2 was declared hostile by the prosecution. PW-3 Pradip Saikia has stated that on 07.06.2007, while he was serving as the Driver of the official vehicle of SDO(C), Kaliabor, he went with the Executive Magistrate Anil Ch. Das to the Veterinary Centre at Kuwaritol and after about half an hour, the Executive Magistrate took the Veterinary Surgeon Abani Pathak to the SDO's Office and he put his signature in the seizure list. PW-4 Anil Ch. Das, Executive Magistral-cum-Election Officer of Kaliabor Sub Division of Nagaon District, has stated that on 07.06.2007, at about 11 AM, Sum Divisional Officer Niranjan Barua informed him over phone that due to taking of bribe by officials of Veterinary Department of Kuwaritol, the local social activists surrounded the Veterinary Centre and asked him to proceed to the place of occurrence. Immediately he went to Kaliabor Police Station and took Sub-Inspector Chetri to the nearby Veterinary Centre and when he arrived there, he found many people gathered there making hue and cry and he was told by the public that the officials of Veterinary Centre had been taking illegal gratification at the rate of Rs. 250/-instead of Rs. 15/-. When he entered the office, he witnessed the officials taking bribe from the public and when he opened the drawer of one table, he found currency notes and on asking the accused appellant Archad Ali told him that he was collecting the cost of printing and photocopy. He also found the Veterinary Field Assistant Nuruddin Ahmed fleeing from the office and found the accused appellant Abani Pathak inside the room. He recovered Rs. 1365/- from the pocket of Archad Ali and Rs. 3165/- from a polythene bag kept by him in his table drawer. He has also stated that at that time, the Government of Assam had sanctioned Kalpataru Schemes-Schemes of Poultry, Dairy and Fishery for the unemployed youths. When the people were raising hue and cry, accused appellant Dr. Behera approached him to save himself from the public ire and thereupon, he took him in his official vehicle to the office. On the same day. he lodged the ejahar vide Ext.-2 with the Officer-in-Charge of Kaliabor Police Station on permission from the SDO(C) Niranjan Baruah. On that day. the police officer seized the currency notes of Rs. 4530/-which included ten 100 Rupees Currency Notes, thirty two Rs. 50 Currency Notes, thirty nine Rs. On the same day. he lodged the ejahar vide Ext.-2 with the Officer-in-Charge of Kaliabor Police Station on permission from the SDO(C) Niranjan Baruah. On that day. the police officer seized the currency notes of Rs. 4530/-which included ten 100 Rupees Currency Notes, thirty two Rs. 50 Currency Notes, thirty nine Rs. 20 Currency Notes and hundred and twelve Rs. 10 Currency Notes. PW-5 Minati Bora Bharali has stated that on 05.06.2007, she went to the Veterinary Centre at Kuwaritol to collect application forms for Kalpataru Scheme for self-employment. The Veterinary Doctor told her to furnish her address and advised to visit on the following day. She was declared as a hostile witness by the prosecution. PW-6 Yakub Ali has stated that on 7.6.07, when he went to the Veterinary Centre at Kuwaritol to collect information forms under Kalpataru Scheme for self-employment, the Veterinary Doctor gave him one such form, free of cost, and on the following day, he submitted the form. PW-7 Jogen Bora has stated that on 06.06.2007, he went to the Veterinary Centre at Kuwaritol to collect application forms. He declined to state that the Veterinary officials had taken bribe from him at the rate of Rs. 50/- to Rs. 200/- at the time the forms were deposited. The said PW-7 was declared hostile. PW-8 S.I. Debo Chetri has stated that on 07.06.2007, as directed by the Officer-in-Charge of Kaliabor Police Station, he accompanied the Executive Magistrate Anil Ch. Das to the Veterinary Centre at Kuwaritol, because he was informed that there was hue and cry during distribution of forms under Kalpataru Scheme. On the basis of the information, G.D. Entry No. 135, dated 7.6.2007, was recorded and at about 11.40 AM, they arrived at the said centre and they were told that the Veterinary officials were taking bribe while distributing forms of schemes to the public. As directed by the Executive Magistrate, he seized a polythene bag containing currency notes of Rs. 4530/- from the accused appellant Archad Ali. He also seized photocopies of plan and estimate of goatery and dairy schemes with signatures of the accused appellant Dr. D. K. Behera. Ext.-l is the seizure list and Material Ext.-2 is the forms of schemes. On 08.06.2007, he handed over the Case Diary to the Officer-in-Charge of Kaliabor Police Station. 4530/- from the accused appellant Archad Ali. He also seized photocopies of plan and estimate of goatery and dairy schemes with signatures of the accused appellant Dr. D. K. Behera. Ext.-l is the seizure list and Material Ext.-2 is the forms of schemes. On 08.06.2007, he handed over the Case Diary to the Officer-in-Charge of Kaliabor Police Station. PW-9 Suman Chakraborty has stated that on 07.06.2007, while he was serving as Sub-Divisional Police Office if (S.D.P.O.), Kaliabor, under Nagaon District, the Superintendent of Police. Nagaon, endorsed the Kaliabor P.S. Case No. 42/2007 to him for investigation and the Case Diary was handed over to him by the Sub-Inspector Debo Chetri. Initially, the case was registered under Section 161 IPC, but after taking permission from the Court of the learned Special Judge, Assam, the Section 7 of the PC Act was added to the said case. He recorded the statements of the 5 (five) witnesses. On the basis of his application the Superintendent of Police, Nagaon, forwarded the application to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam concerned, for according prosecution sanction against the accused appellants. On his transfer, the case was endorsed to his successor Subhasis Baruah by the Superintendent of Police, Nagaon. PW-10 Subhasis Baruah has stated that on 07.12.2009, while he was serving as SDPO, Kaliabor, under Nagaon District, Superintendent of Police, Nagaon, endorsed Kaliabor P.S. Case No. 42/2007 under Section 7 of the PC Act, to him for investigation and after going through the Case Diary, he found that the case was pending for prosecution sanction and on 31.08.2010, he obtained the prosecution sanction orders against three accused appellants and the prosecution sanction against accused appellant Dr. D. K. Behera was received by his predecessor. Thereafter, he filed the charge-sheet against the accused appellants under Section 7 of the PC Act. 1988. PW-11 Shyam Mewora has stated that on 06.07.2009, while he was working as the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Department, he received an application from the Superintendent of Police, Nagaon, in connection with Kaliabor p.s. Case No. 42/2007 under Section 7 of the PC Act, for according prosecution sanction against the accused appellant Dr. D. K. Behera. Before according prosecution sanction, he asked for details from the Superintendent of Police, Nagaon, and the Director, Prosecution, accusation against the accused appellant Dr. D. K. Behera. Before according prosecution sanction, he asked for details from the Superintendent of Police, Nagaon, and the Director, Prosecution, accusation against the accused appellant Dr. K. Behera was that the SDO(C), Kaliabor, received complaints of taking illegal gratification at the time of distribution of forms to the public at Kuwaritol Veterinary Centre and on the same day, the Executive Magistrate apprehended the accused appellants and recovered Rs. 4,000/- from them. After going through the opinion of the Legal Remembrancer and the documents filed with application for prosecution sanction, accorded prosecution sanction against accused appellant Dr. D. K. Behera. PW-12 Aswini Kr. Kalita has stated that on 06.07.2009, while he was working as the Director, Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Department, he received a letter from the Under Secretary to the Government of Assam Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Department regarding prosecution sanction against the accused appellants Abani Pathak, Veterinary Field Assistants, Archad Ali and Nuruddin Ahmed. The application was enclosed with copy of the First Information Report (FIR), statements of witnesses, and the investigation report submitted by the SDPO Suman Chakraborty. The allegation against the accused appellants was that on 07.06.2007, while distributing forms of Kalpataru Schemes, at their Veterinary dispensary, they collected illegal gratification at the rate of Rs. 20 to Rs. 200/'-. per form, from different beneficiaries. On the same day, the Executive Magistrate Anil Ch. Das caught the accused appellants red lianded and recovered the currency notes from their possession. After going through the First Information Report (FIR), statements of witnesses and investigation report, he accorded prosecution sanction under Section 7 of the PC Act against those three accused appellants. 5. Evidence of Defence Witnesses: DW-1 Kedar Thakur has stated that on 07.06 2007. at about 10 to 11 AM, when he went to the Veterinary Centre at Kuwaritol to bring one scheme form for Jersey cow, he found twenty to twenty five people gathered there for collection of forms and he did not see any person giving money to the officials and the accused appellant Dr. Behera gave him one such form, free of cost. Behera gave him one such form, free of cost. DW-2 Masuddin Ahmed has stated that on 07.06.2007 at about 1 to 1.30PM, when he went to the Veterinary Centre at Kuwaritol to collect forms of goatery scheme, he was given one such form, free of cost, by one of the employees and he saw many people gathered there for the same purpose and he did not know whether any person had given money for the forms to the officials. DW-3 Ratul Bora has stated that on 07.06.2007 while he was in his Veterinary Sub-Centre at Missa under Kuwaritol Veterinary Dispensary, at about 10 AM, his colleague Nuruddin Ahmed went to Kuwaritol Veterinary Centre to bring injection for artificial insemination and at about 2-2.20PM, he returned to their centre. DW-4 Prasanna Bora has stated that on 07.06.2007 at about 12 noon, he went to Kuwaritol to collect forms of Kalpataru Goatery Scheme and the accused appellant Dr. Behera gave him one such form without taking any money from him and he found 20 to 25 people gathered there to collect such forms. DW-5 Nabir Hussain has stated that the accused appellant Archad Ali is his elder brother and in 2006, he had purchased one auto-rickshaw being Registration No. AS-02-C-9891 by taking loan and his elder brother Archad Ali stood as guarantor. The price of the auto-rickshaw was Rs. 2 lacs and he made down payment of Rs. 83,000/- and as per the loan agreement, he had to repay the loan in 24 equal monthly instalments. The first 12 instalments were paid at the rate of Rs. 4,716/- and the remaining 12 instalments were paid at the rate of Rs. 4,500/-. On 5.1.2009, the entire loan was repaid. Kxt.-A is the higher purchase agreement with Rajlaxmi Enterprise and Ext.-A(1), B(1), B(2), B(3), and B(4), are the receipts of instalments paid to the said company. He has also stated that the amount of Rs. 4,530/-, which was found by police in a polythene bag with hi s elder brother Archad Ali in his office on 07.06.2007 was given by him to keep with him for repayment of the instalment against the loan for the said vehicle. 6. Arguments: Mr. He has also stated that the amount of Rs. 4,530/-, which was found by police in a polythene bag with hi s elder brother Archad Ali in his office on 07.06.2007 was given by him to keep with him for repayment of the instalment against the loan for the said vehicle. 6. Arguments: Mr. A. Sharif, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, has submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to lead any consistent and credible evidence to establish the essence of the charge under Section 7 of the PC Act that the appellants demanded and accepted any gratification from the intending applicants for delivery of forms along with plan and estimate under the Kalpataru scheme. Mr. Sharif has submitted that the learned trial Court framed the charge under the aforesaid Section of the PC Act on the basis of the statements of Bhaiti Ahmed, Nandalal Upadhayaya, Chandra Sekhar Mishra, Bikash Upadhayaya, Nurjamal Hoque, Yakub Ali and Ayesh Khan, recorded under Section 161 CrPC, but out of them, examined only Chandra Sekhar Mishra (PW-1), Nandalal Upadhayaya (PW-2) and Yakub Ali (PW-6), who have not supported the case and the prosecution has declared them hostile. According to Mr. Sharif, the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned trial Court has ignored the evidence of the 5(five) defence witnesses, whom the prosecution extensively cross-examined, although it is well-settled that the defence evidence also needs to be appreciated at par with the prosecution evidence. Mr. Sharif has relevantly relied on the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala reported in (2009) 3 SCC 779 . Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. P.P., appearing for the State of Assam, fairly submitted that in the instant case, the prosecution case entirely rests on the impartial official witnesses, more particularly, PWs-4, the then Executive Magistrate, Kaliabor and PW-8 S.I. Debo Chetri, who detected the commission of the offence and they have withstood the tests of cross-examination of the defence. According to Ms. Jahan, learned Addl. P.P., Assam, the prosecution has established the ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. 7. According to Ms. Jahan, learned Addl. P.P., Assam, the prosecution has established the ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. 7. Legal Position: In order to sustain an offence under Section 7 of the PC Act, the prosecution must prove :- (a) that the accused was a public servant; (b) that he has obtained from any person any gratification, and (c) that the gratification should be other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to the person. If the first two ingredients are proved by evidence then a rebuttable presumption arises in respect of the third ingredient Explanation (b)to Section 7 says that the word "gratification" is not restricted to pecuniary gratifications or to gratifications estimable in terms of money. Therefore, prima facie, even voluntary acceptance of an amount of money or a valuable thing by a public servant is amount to acceptance of gratification. To speak it differently, the essence of the side offence lies in obtaining or accepting by a public servant of a gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do an official act or for showing or for bearing to show any favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering any service or disservice to him. The initial burden is on the prosecution to prove that the accused public servant accepted gratification, which was not his legal remuneration, and once it is established, the burden shifts on him to prove to the contrary. If may be mentioned that recovery of certain amount of money from the accused without the proof of its payment by or on behalf of some person, the presumption of acceptance of gratification cannot be drawn. 8. Appreciation of Evidence: The First Information Report (FIR), dated 07.06.2007. vide Ext.2. lodged by PW-4 Anil Chandra Das, the then Executive Magistrate, Kaliabor, before the Officer-in-Charge of Kaliabor Police Station, revealed the allegation that the appellants, namely, Abani Pathak and Archad Ali, the Veterinary Field Assistants of Kuwaritol Veterinary Centre, were apprehended, while they accepted gratification, in course of discharge of official duty of distribution of photocopy of Veterinary Schemes (Plan and Estimates) to the applicants for Kalpataru scheme. Another appellant, namely, Md. Another appellant, namely, Md. Nuruddin Ahmed, Veterinary Field Assistant, however, managed to llee away from the said Centre. It further revealed that the informant Executive Magistrate recorded their statements. The evidence of PW-4 shows that on receipt of the information about taking of money by the Veterinary officials of Veterinaiy Centre of Kuwaritol, which gave rise to the law and order situation at the said Veterinary Centre, he accompanied by police of Kaliabor P.S. rushed to the place and on enquiry from the public, who rounded up the Centre, came to know that the Veterinary officials concerned were taking @ Rs. 250/- instead of Rs. 15/- per form. His(PW-4) evidence further shows that they conducted search in the said Centre and on enquiry, the appellant Archad Ali informed him(PW-4) that he was collecting the cost of printing and photocopy only of the forms and scheme. On personal search, he recovered Rs. 1,365/- from the pocket of the appellant Archad Ali and another amount from the possession of the said appellant. According to him(P W-4), thereafter, on the same day, he filed the First Information Report(FIR) vide Ext.2 and S.I. Deba Chetri (PW-8) of Kaliabor P.S. seized Rs. 4,530/-. On perusal of his(PW-4) cross-examination, it, inter alia, reveals that at the relevant time, a chaotic situation prevailed at the Veterinary Centre as about 500 people were raising slogan to arrest the Veterinary officials and the monetary transaction was seen going on through the cash counter of the Centre. He never enquired from the appellant Archad Ali as to how he came into possession of Rs. 4,530/-. He admitted the defence suggestion that no money was recovered from the appellant Abani Pathak, who was found sitting together with the appellant Archad Ali, in the cash counter room and failed to say as to how the other appellants, namely, Dr. Dhirendra Kumar Behera and Nuruddin Ahmed were involved in taking bribe from the public inside the cash counter. Thus, PW-4, the informant-Executive Magistrate, in substance, supported the contentions made in the First Information Report (FIR) vide Ext.2, subject, however, to scrutiny in the light of evidence of the remaining prosecution witnesses balancing with the evidence of the defence witnesses. 9. Dhirendra Kumar Behera and Nuruddin Ahmed were involved in taking bribe from the public inside the cash counter. Thus, PW-4, the informant-Executive Magistrate, in substance, supported the contentions made in the First Information Report (FIR) vide Ext.2, subject, however, to scrutiny in the light of evidence of the remaining prosecution witnesses balancing with the evidence of the defence witnesses. 9. In the backdrop of the prosecution case, the crucial question that needs to be invariably answered is whether the appellants had demanded any amount as gratification to show any official favour and if it is so, who paid the amount. The Apex Court in the case of C. M. Girish Babu v. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala, reported in (2009) 3 SCC 779 , held as follows: "Mere recovery of tainted money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive evidence in the case, is not reliable. The mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused, in the absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe." 10. Turning to the evidence of PW-8 S.I. Deba Chetri, who acted on the information of PW-4, the Executive Magistrate and who accompanied him (PW-4) to Kuwaritol Veterinary' Centre, Kaliabor, on 07.06.2007, it is found that on receipt of the information to the effect that hue and cry broke out at the said Veterinary Centre in regard to distribution of forms of Kalpataru scheme, a general diary entry, being Kaliabor P.S. GD.E. No. 135, dated 07.06.2007, was made. However, no certified copy of the aforesaid GD. Entry was exhibited to treat it as the First Information Report (FIR) in the case. Nevertheless, in course of conducting search at the Veterinary Centre, he seized Rs. 4,530/- and 7 Nos. of copy of Scheme(Plan & Estimate) from the possession of the appellant Archad Ali, Veterinary Field Assistant, in presence of PW-1 Chandra Sekhar Mishra, PW-4, the Executive Magistrate PW-3 Prodip Saikia and PW-2 Nandalal Upadhayaya. PW-8 has recognised M. Ext.1, the seized money, M.Ext.2, the seized copy of scheme and M.Ext.3, the polythene bag, wherein, the seized currency notes were found. PW-8 has recognised M. Ext.1, the seized money, M.Ext.2, the seized copy of scheme and M.Ext.3, the polythene bag, wherein, the seized currency notes were found. According to him(PW-8), except from the appellant Archad's possession, no money or any scheme form was recovered out of the possession of the other appellants and that only the said appellant collected @ Rs. 5, Rs. 10, Rs. 50, etc., for supplying forms to the intending beneficiaries under the said scheme. Thus, it is seen that except the fact of recovery of Rs. 4,530/-, out of the possession of the appellant Archad Ali, and the other general facts of the whole incident. On scrutiny of their (PWs-4 and 8) evidence with the evidence of PWs-1, 2 and 3, it is found that they (PWs-1,2 and 3) have not corroborated their (PWs-4 and 8) evidence and the prosecution has declared them hostile. PWs-1, 2 and 3 have only recognised their signatures on Ext.-1, the seizure memo, without stating anything about its contents or about the incident. Thus, the seizure witnesses (PWs-1, 2 and 3) have not supported the prosecution version of the case. However, keeping in consideration of the defence not disputing the aforesaid amount of money being recovered and seized out of the possession of the appellant Archad Ali, the evidence rendered by PWs-4 and 8 cannot be disbelieved in this regard. The said appellant Archad Ali in his statement, under Section 313 CrPC, has clarified that the seized amount of Rs. 4,530/- was the monthly instalment amount payable towards the repayment of the loan amount for purchasing a Tempo, of which loan, he stood as a guarantor a fact which is discussed at a later appropriate place. 11. There is no dispute that the appellants were 'public servant' within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the PC' Act. PW-9 Suman Chakraborty, the then Sub-Divisional Police Officer (SDPO). Kaliabor, applied for their prosecution sanction as required under Section 19(1)(b) of the Act, against the appellants through proper channel and accordingly PW-11 Shyam Mewara, the then Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam Animal Husbandry' & Veterinary Department, accorded sanction for prosecution of the appellant Dr. Dhirendra Kr. Behera, vide Ext.4, while PW-12, Aswini Kumar Kalita, the then Director, Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Department, accorded sanction for prosecution of the appellants, namely, Abani Pathak, Archad Ali and Nuruddin Ahmed, the Veterinary Field Assistants, vide Ext.5. Dhirendra Kr. Behera, vide Ext.4, while PW-12, Aswini Kumar Kalita, the then Director, Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Department, accorded sanction for prosecution of the appellants, namely, Abani Pathak, Archad Ali and Nuruddin Ahmed, the Veterinary Field Assistants, vide Ext.5. 12. It is noticed that the prosecution has declared PW-5 Minati Bora Bharali, PW-6 Yakub Ali and PW-7 Jogen Bora, as hostile witness and nothing in support of the prosecution case is deducible from their evidence. PW-10 Subhasish Baruah, the then SDPO, Kaliabor, after PW-9 was transferred, took over the charge of the ease and submitted the Charge-sheet vide Ext.3 against the appellants. 13. The next relevant question is whether the seized money was bribed amount and if so, from whom received. There is apparently no answer from the prosecution side in this regard. However, the defence has set-up a different story of the incident. According to DW-1 Kedar Thakur and DW-4 Prasanna Bora, on 07.06.2007, morning, they received forms of Veterinary scheme from the appellant Dr. Dhirendra Kumar Behera, without payment of money. According to DW-2 Mosamuddin Ahmed, he received such form from the Veterinary officials, free of cost. On the other hand DW-3 Ratul Bora stated that on 07.06.2007 at about 10AM, the appellant Nuruddin Ahmed went to Kuwaritol Veterinary Centre to collect artificial insemination injection for his cows and Nuruddin returned to Missa Veterinary Sub-Centre of which he was the In-charge. Thus, their evidence show that the appellants or the Veterinary officials of Kuwaritol Veterinary Centre did not demand and accept gratification for supplying forms of Veterinary scheme to the intending beneficiaries of the Kalpataru scheme. 14. Turning to the evidence of D W-5 Nabir Hussain, it is found that the appellant Archad Ali is his cider brother and he stood guarantor for the loan provided by Rajlaxmi Enterprise, Guwahati, to him (DW-5) for purchasing an auto-rickshaw, bearing Registration No. AS-02-C-9813, repayable in 12 instalments @ Rs. 4500/- only, per month, through its agent Taz Hire Purchase, Nagaon. His further evidence is that the seized money of Rs. 4.530/- was given by him to his said elder brother, on 07.06.2007, to keep with him for payment of the instalment due. He has exhibited Ext. A, the hire purchase agreement with Rajlaxmi Enterprise, bearing his said brother's signature, vide Ext.A (1), as surety. He also exhibited B(1), B(2), 6(3) and B(4), the instalment payment receipts. 4.530/- was given by him to his said elder brother, on 07.06.2007, to keep with him for payment of the instalment due. He has exhibited Ext. A, the hire purchase agreement with Rajlaxmi Enterprise, bearing his said brother's signature, vide Ext.A (1), as surety. He also exhibited B(1), B(2), 6(3) and B(4), the instalment payment receipts. The prosecution appears to have not been able to shaken the testimony of the defence witnesses. It needs to be borne in mind that the evidence tendered by the defence witnesses cannot always be considered as tainted one, rather the same should be treated at par with the prosecution witnesses being the standard of proof of defence plea is also a reasonable standard. Therefore, in the absence of credible and trustworthy evidence in support of the prosecution version of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court, the defence evidence cannot be brushed aside and as such, its benefit will certainly go to the appellants. 15. Conclusion: For the above stated reasons, the above mentioned Criminal Appeals No. 56/2013, 57/2013, 58/2013 and 59/2013, are allowed. 16. The impugned judgment & order, dated 05.02.2013, passed by the learned Special Judge, Assam, Guwahati, in Special Case No. 03 of 2011 is hereby set aside and quashed. 17. The appellants are acquitted of the charge under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988, and set at liberty. 18. Send back the LCRs along with a copy of this judgment & order. 19. Appeals disposed of.