Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 374 (GAU)

State of Assam v. Prabin Chandra Bora

2018-02-28

HITESH KUMAR SARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. This appeal is file under Section against the judgment and order, dated 18.3.2009, passed by the learned Special Judge, Assam, in Special Case No. 21 (A)/2002, acquitting the accused-respondent of the charge under Section 13 (1) (e) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as PC Act.) 2. The fact leading to the case is that, an FIR was lodged by Sri Dharmeswar Gogoi, the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Assam, with the officer-in-charge of ACB Police Station stating that during the enquiry in ACB RE No. 37 (8)/98, conducted against the accused-respondent, Sri Prabin Bora, LDA in the Assam Secretariat, Dispur, it was revealed that during the tenure of his service w.e.f. 1969-97, the accused-respondent accumulated huge properties and the calculation of his assets and liability submitted by him shows that the assets of the accused-respondent were worth Rs. 3,42,650/- which is found to be disproportionate to his known sources of income. 3. On receipt of the FIR, on the above facts, ACB Police Station registered a case and after completion of the investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the accused-respondent under Sections 13 (1) (e)/13 (2) of the PC Act. 4. After exhausting all the required formalities, the learned trial court, commenced the trial for the charge against the accused-respondent under the aforesaid provisions of the PC Act. 5. I have perused the record of the learned trial court including the judgment rendered by the learned Special Judge, Assam, acquitting the accused-respondent. 6. I have heard Mr. S. Kalita, learned counsel for the accused-respondent as well as Mr. B.J. Dutta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state respondent. 7. Now, this court is to find out whether the judgment rendered by the learned trial court is perverse so far the evidence on record is concerned. 8. On perusal of the evidence on record as a whole, it appears to this court that, the prosecution case is based on Ext.9 which is a calculation statement in respect of assets of the accused-respondent. Ext.9 shows that the movable as well as the immovable assets, deposits, investment of the accused-respondent to the tune of Rs. 5,97,105/-. Ext.9 shows that the movable assets in the name of the wife of the accused-respondent which are shown to be the assets of the accused-respondent worth Rs. 2,96,461/-. Ext.9 shows that the movable as well as the immovable assets, deposits, investment of the accused-respondent to the tune of Rs. 5,97,105/-. Ext.9 shows that the movable assets in the name of the wife of the accused-respondent which are shown to be the assets of the accused-respondent worth Rs. 2,96,461/-. In respect of the calculation-sheet, no documentary evidence was produced by the prosecution before the learned trial court to substantiate that the calculation made in Ext. 9 was made correctly which was necessary for examination by this court. That apart, in Ext.10, the pay and allowances statement w.e.f. July 1979 to October 1998 of the accused-respondent is shown to be Rs. 2,99,719/- whereas for the period w.e.f. November 1998 to July 2000 is stated to be Rs. 1,07,570/-. Ext.10 is the salary statements of the accused-respondent and during the evidence of the investigating police officer, as PW8, he has admitted that Ext.10 did not disclose the salary and other allowances for the period from 1969 to 1979. The income of the accused-respondent from the vehicle he owned is also found to have not taken into account. 9. What is most important part of this case is that in the charge-sheet itself, the prosecution did not mention about the check-period and in the FIR it was stated that the check-period of 1969-1997. But, admittedly, during the course of the evidence, vide Ext.10, the salary of the accused-respondent could not be shown for the aforesaid period. A criminal case investigated by the police is based on the police report filed under Section 173 of the Cr.PC and the documents annexed therewith. 10. In the instant case, the police report (charge-sheet) filed under Section 173 of the Cr.PC, fails to disclose the check-period, and therefore, the evidence of the prosecution as regards amassing huge assets by the accused-respondent disproportionate to his known sources of income, could not have been laid for the period of 1969-2000 as found from the Ext. 10. 11. The learned trial court is found to have discussed all these factors in its judgment finally holding that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused-respondent beyond all reasonable doubt appears to have based on evidence on record. 12. In the instant case, the State is the appellant. 10. 11. The learned trial court is found to have discussed all these factors in its judgment finally holding that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused-respondent beyond all reasonable doubt appears to have based on evidence on record. 12. In the instant case, the State is the appellant. The factors which resulted in the ultimate acquittal of the accused-respondent are all attributable to the inefficient investigation of the case, and therefore, it does not appear to this court that the State had any valid ground to prefer the appeal, the judgment being not perverse to the evidence on record. 13. In view of the above, the appeal preferred by the State, is dismissed. 14. Send down the LCR alongwith a copy of this judgment.