Post on 27-Apr-2020
1 Special (Vig.) (T) Case No.2/2010.
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE : LAKHIMPUR : AT NORTH LAKHIMPUR.
SPECIAL (VIG.) (T) CASE NO.2/2010. P A R T I E S State of Arunachal Pradesh. … Complainant. -versus- Dr. Ngangin Lego @ Osik. … Accused. P R E S E N T Md. Imtiaz Ali, Special Judge, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur. A P P E A R A N C E Mr. Jogeswar Gogoi, the learned Special Public Prosecutor, for the State. Mr. Jagneswar Saikia, the learned Advocate for the accused person. Date of charge : 31.07.2010. Dates of Prosecution evidence : 07.02.2011, 23.05.2011, 21.06.2011, 19.07.2011,
17.08.2011, 19.09.2011, 14.11.2011, 11.01.2012, 07.03.2012, 26.02.2013, 24.06.2013, 05.05.2014, 10.09.2014, 11.11.2014, 20.01.2015, 11.03.2015 and 20.05.2015.
Date of statement : 17.06.2015. Dates of Defence evidence : 01.12.2015 and 24.02.2016. Date of argument : 21.03.2016, 05.05.2016 & 18.05.2016. Date of Judgment : 15.06.2016. J U D G M E N T
1. Accused, Dr. Ngangin Lego @ N.N. Osik stands charge
under Section 13(2) RW Sec.13(1)(d) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 for alleged commission of misconduct by abusing his
position as a public servant and obtained for himself valuable assets to the extent
of Rs.59,14,748/- only and Rs.61,29,526/- only respectively and also for his wife
assets to the tune of Rs.3,17,22,986/- only for the block year, 2001-2002 and
Contd…
2 Special (Vig.) (T) Case No.2/2010.
Rs.3,32,69,624/- only for the block year, 2002-2003, which is disproportionate to
the total known source of his income for the aforesaid block years.
Facts of the Case
2. Prosecution allegation as disclosed from the F.I.R. (Ext.2)
lodged on 23.03.2005 by the informant, Sri K. Raj Chetri, the then S.P. (Crime
Branch) SIT, PHQ, Itanagar ( Arunachal Pradesh ), in brief, is that the case
pertaining to Public Distribution System (PDS) was entrusted to the Crime Branch
(SIT) for investigation, and the instant case refers to CB PS Case No.3/2003 u/s
409 IPC registered on 05.08.2003 and concerning to carriage contract of PDS,
which is under investigation by SIT, and during investigation of the instant case,
incriminating documents were seized and witnesses were interrogated, and the
same reveals that the Director of Civil Supplies, Dr. N.N. Osik was abusing his
official position as a public servant and had amassed huge unaccountable wealth
beyond his means of earning. It is also alleged that during scrutiny of the Bank
Account of the accused in the United Commercial Bank, Itanagar bearing Account
No.4660, found that total amount deposited was Rs.2,89,43,072/- in between
04.10.2002 to 01.07.2004, and the facts of regular money deposited in his
personal account goes to indicate that the said Officer was habitually accepting
bribe by abusing his official position as a public servant and the amounts were
deposited on different dates by cash, transfer etc. and the balance amount after
withdrawal in this account as on 01.07.2004 is Rs.3,962/- only. It is further
alleged that the accused has maintained a number of properties in Arunachal
Pradesh in his and his family/ children’s name, which is disproportionate to his
known source of income and which he cannot give satisfactory account, and this
obviously points to the ill-gotten wealth, which has been made from the money
amassed by him illegally during his tenure as Director of Civil Supplies, and as
such, a criminal case of disproportionate asset is made out against the accused
u/s 13(i)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Investigation
3. On receipt of the F.I.R. the Officer-in-charge of Crime
Branch PS, PHQ, Itanagar (Arunachal Pradesh) registered a case bearing Crime
Branch PS Case No.6/2005 u/s 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Originally, the case was endorsed to Sri C.B.Chetry, Dy. S.P. (SIT), Crime Branch,
PHQ and subsequently, it was re-endorsed to Sri M.Riba, Dy. S.P. SIC, for further
3 Special (Vig.) (T) Case No.2/2010.
investigation, and during the course of investigation, the I.Os. recorded the
statement of the witnesses, seized certain documents, and after completing the
investigation, finally submitted charge sheet against accused, Dr. Ngangin Lego
@ Dr. N.N. Osik u/s 13(1)(e) RW Sec.13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
4. The Honourable Gauhati High Court was pleased to
transfer the case from the learned Special Judge, Yupia (Arunachal Pradesh) to
this Special Court cum Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur (Assam) on
the basis of the Order dtd. 24.09.2009 passed in PIL No.50/2004 for trial, and
accordingly on appearance of the accused person, a charge u/s 13(2) RW Sec.
13(1)(d)/ 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act had been framed against
him. The charge was read over and explained to the accused, to which he
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The accused person in his statement recorded u/s 313
CrPC denied to have committed any crime.
6. I have heard Mr. Jogeswar Gogoi, the learned Special
Public Prosecutor for the State, and Mr. Jagneswar Saikia, the learned counsel
appearing for the accused person.
7. Now, the point for determination in this case is –
Whether the accused person, Dr. Ngangin Lego @ N.N. Osik during the years,
2001-2002 and 2002- 2003, being a public servant as Director of Food & Civil
Supplies, Arunachal Pradesh at Itanagar, committed criminal misconduct by
abusing his position as a public servant and obtained for himself valuable assets
to the extent of Rs.59,14,748/- only and Rs.61,29,526/- only respectively and
also for his wife assets to the tune of Rs.3,17,22,986/- only for the block year,
2001-2002 and Rs.3,32,69,624/- only for the block year, 2002-2003, which is
disproportionate to the total known source of his income for the aforesaid block
years., as alleged ?
DISCUSSION, DECISION & REASONS THEREOF
8. To bring home the charge levelled against the accused
person, prosecution has examined as many as 22 (Twenty Two) witnesses,
Contd…
4 Special (Vig.) (T) Case No.2/2010.
namely PW.1, Sri Tanyuk Kopak, PW.2, Sri Takam Tadu, PW.3, Sri Jarkar Gamlin,
PW.4, Sri Pradip Kumar Borah, PW.5, Sri Ramesh Babu, PW.6, Sri Takam Pario,
PW.7, Sri Marsel Lego, PW.8, Sri Nikh Tapa, PW.9, Sri Gammi Ete, PW.10, Sri Bidi
Lego, PW.11, Smti Roitong Singpho, PW.12, Sri Mijin Tayeng, PW.13, Md. Sohrab
Ali Hazarika, PW.14, Sri Ananda Sharma, PW.15, Sri Gokia Ajay, PW.16, Sri Kishan
Raj Chetry, the informant, PW.17, Sri Chandra Bahadur Chetry, PW.18, Sri Mari
Riba, PW.19, Sri Krishna Singh Bisht, PW.19, Sri Deba Prasad Dutta, PW.20, Sri
Subhash Chandra Yadav and PW.21, Sri Mohan Kaye. The accused has also
examined 2 (two) defence witnesses including him as DW.1 and his wife, Smti
Punang Osik as DW.2.
9. PW.1, Sri Tanyup Kopak deposed that he is having a Book
stall and a stationary shop at Itanagar and he used to run an education coaching
center too under name and style, “M/s Woman Kitchen” at Itanagar, and took
more than Rs.5 /6 Lakhs as loan from the accused to set up his business
establishment. During cross examination, PW.1 stated that Mrs. Punam Osik is
the wife of the accused and she is having business at Itanagar and Pashighat,
and she is also having timber business, piggery and Mithun farm in large scale
and she used to earn Rs.15 to Rs.16 Lakhs per year from a single firm. Sri B.D.
Lego is the business partner of Punam Osik. He also stated that one Takam Tado
and Punam Osik made an agreement to set up a Five Star hotel at Itanagar, and
for that purpose, Punam Osik took loan from different persons, and all these
money were kept by Punam Osik in the account of the accused in the UCO Bank,
Itanagar, and later on, Punam and others abandoned their plan to set up Five
Star hotel and thereafter, the accused returned the money to the different
persons from whom, his wife took loan for her business activities by withdrawing
money from his bank account. He also stated that on 18.06.2003, he returned
back an amount of Rs.6 Lakhs only to Punam Osik, which he took as loan from
his uncle.
10. PW.2, Sri Takam Tadu deposed that he was the President
of All Arunachal Pradesh Students Union, Lower Subansiri district when the
district was undivided and subsequently, Lower Subansiri district was bifurcated
into Kurung Kume district and at that time, the accused was Addl. Deputy
Commissioner of Lower Subansiri district. He also deposed that they occasionally
Contd…
5 Special (Vig.) (T) Case No.2/2010.
used to meet the accused in connection with students’ problem as well as for
some social activities, and after 2001, he started his business in construction of
buildings, civil works as well as supply of materials to the State Govt.
departments of Arunachal Pradesh, and at that time, he was running a trading
company, namely M/S Ritu Trading Company being power of attorney of that
Company. He also deposed that since the days of his students' leadership, family
friendship developed in between him and the accused and he never took money
from the accused. He further deposed that in the year, 2000, he along with the
wife of the accused namely Mrs. Poonam Lego proposed to start joint venture by
purchasing a ready-built Hotel at Naharlagun and for that purpose, they collected
money from friends, relatives and other well-wishers and the collected money
was deposited in the account of Mrs. Lego i.e., the wife of the accused. He
furthermore deposed that he has no knowledge in which bank Mrs. Lego had
account and he had not received any money from the accused, and later on, they
abandoned the joint venture and the collected money was returned back to the
persons from whom said amount was collected. During cross examination, PW.2
stated that in Ext.’A’, Declaration, he had mentioned that they collected an
amount of Rs.95 Lakhs from various persons, but subsequently the idea of
purchasing hotel was abandoned and the amount collected was returned back to
the persons from whom the amount was collected.
11. PW.3, Sri Jarkar Gamlin deposed that he was serving as SI
of Police in Arunachal Police department and in the year, 1991, he left that job
and thereafter, he started doing business and contractual job, such as supply of
various articles to the Govt. department of Arunachal Pradesh, and he also
started business in dealership of cement, tyre etc. He also deposed that when
the accused was serving as E.A.C at Yongsha in West Siang district probably in
the year, 1986, he came in contact with the accused, and then the accused is
known to him and when, later on, the accused became Director of Civil Supplies
at Itanagar (A.P.), the accused made close contact with him. He also deposed
that sometimes, when he was in acute need of money for business activities he
used to take money from the accused and he also sometimes used to make
payment of money to the accused if the accused was in necessity of money. He
further deposed that in the year, 2003, he made payment of Rs.14,21,000/- only
to the accused by issuing cheque and the said money was returned back by the
Contd…
6 Special (Vig.) (T) Case No.2/2010.
accused to him within One month. During cross examination, PW.3 stated that he
came to know that Punam Osik also runs business.
12. PW.4, Sri Pradip Kumar Bora deposed that he was working
as cashier in the office of Director, Civil Supplies, Arunachal Pradesh, and at that
time, the Director of Vigilance came to their office and asked him whether the
accused has any account in UCO Bank, and then, he replied that he has no
knowledge in this regard and he did not find any single entry in the cash book in
respect of any account of the UCO Bank in the name of the accused.
13. PW.5, Sri Ramesh Babu deposed that the accused was the
Director of Food & Civil Supplies, Arunachal Pradesh, from the year, 2002 to 2003
and in the year, 2004, the Investigating Officer of this case seized one document
( Letter No.SCS- 26/ 2001/ 536 dtd. 29.11.2004 ) from the office of the Director
of Food & Civil Supplies, Arunachal Pradesh. During cross examination, PW.5
stated that he does not know the contents of the letter No. SCS- 26/ 2001/ 536
dtd. 29.11.2004 and at the time of seizure of that letter, he was working as
Accountant in the office of the Director, Food & Civil Supplies, Arunachal Pradesh,
Naharlagun, and at that time, he was working in Monitoring Section, which does
not deal with Accounts matter.
14. PW.6, Sri Takam Pario deposed that in the year, 1998 -
1999, the accused was Additional Deputy Commissioner in Lower Subansiri
district and from that time, the accused and his wife, Poonam Osik @ Lego are
known to him. He also deposed that during that period, he was doing contract
work under P.D.S. and at that time, he sought financial help from Poonam Osik @
Lego to run his business and accordingly, once he took an amount of more than
Rs.20 Lakhs, and on another occasion, an amount of Rs.50 Lakhs from Mrs.
Poonam Osik and after 2 /3 years, he made repayment of the said amounts to
Poonam Osik. He also deposed that he exactly could not remember in which year,
he took the said amount from Poonam Osik and it might be in the year, 1998 –
1999. During cross examination, PW.6 stated that on 06.03.2003, he made
repayment of an amount of Rs.20,27,000/- to Mrs. Punam Osik and on
09.04.2003, he made repayment of an amount of Rs.50 Lakhs to said Punam
Osik, but he does not know in which bank, the said amount was deposited by
Contd…
7 Special (Vig.) (T) Case No.2/2010.
Punam osik. He also stated that the financial condition of Mrs. Punam Osik was
sound.
15. PW.7, Sri Marsel Lego deposed that the accused is his elder
brother and he was the Director of Food & Civil Supplies, Arunachal Pradesh, and
prior to that, he was Additional Deputy Commissioner. He also deposed that Mrs.
Poonam Osik @ Lego is the wife of the accused and on 08.04.2003, she took an
amount of Rs.10,74,000/- only from him for the purpose of her business and in
the same month i.e., within April, 2003, she returned back the said amount of
money to him. During cross examination, PW.7 stated that on the next day of
taking the amount of Rs.10,74,141/- only, from him, Poonam Osik returned back
an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- only. He also stated that the financial condition of
Mrs. Punam Osik was sound and she was having different business including
transportation and carriages.
16. PW.8, Sri Nikh Tapa deposed that he was the proprietor of
a firm, named M/S Mina Engineering, and the said firm basically deals with
carriage contracts, fabrication, supply of plasticized, fire fighting equipments etc.
which is situated at Sector – C, Naharlagun, and the accused was serving as
Addl. Deputy Commissioner at Ziro in the year, 1997 and since then, the accused
is known to him. He also deposed that the wife of the accused, namely Mrs.
Poonam Osik was also doing business at that time and sometime, he used to
take money from her for his business activities and sometime she used to take
money from him for her business activities. He further deposed that in the year,
2003, he gave an amount of Rs.24 Lakhs only to Mrs. Poonam Osik on her
request as she proposed to purchase a readymade hotel, and accordingly, he
deposited an amount of Rs.24 Lakhs in UCO Bank at Itanagar, Arunachal
Pradesh, and after one month, she took another sum of Rs.25 Lakhs from him for
the said business purpose, and later on, she returned back Rs.49 Lakhs to him as
she decided not to purchase the said hotel. During cross examination, PW.8
stated that the amount of Rs.25 Lakhs and Rs.24 Lakhs were deposited in A/c
No.4660 of UCO Bank. He proved Ext.D and Ext.E to be the money receipts.
17. PW.9, Sri Gammi Ete deposed that accused, Dr. N.N. Osik
@ N. Lego is the cousin brother of his wife and he used to do monetary
Contd…
8 Special (Vig.) (T) Case No.2/2010.
transaction with the wife of the accused, namely Mrs. Poonam Osik for business
purpose, and in the year, 2002, he gave an amount of Rs.15 Lakhs in total on
two occasions to Mrs. Poonam Osik and in the year, 2003, he gave an amount of
Rs.3 Lakhs to Mrs. Poonam Osik, and in the year, 2004, he gave an amount of
Rs.10 Lakhs to Mrs. Poonam Osik at Rowing, while the accused was serving as
Dy. Commissioner there. He also deposed that at that time, he was having
business of timber, and also used to do contractual work in CPWD and later on,
Mrs. Poonam Osik returned back the entire amount of money to him in the year,
2004. During cross examination, PW.9 exhibited Ext.F and Ext.G to be the money
receipts.
18. PW.10, Sri Bidi Lego deposed that he has been doing
timber business since 1983 and the accused is related to him and he is having
saw mill at Pishala since 1999, which he got after acceptance of his tender by
Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh. He also deposed that he used to run that saw mill in
partnership with Mrs. Ponung Osik @ Poonam Osik, wife of the accused and till
2002, Ponung Osik was his business partner in running that saw mill and
thereafter, she withdrew herself from the said partnership business, and he alone
continued to run that business. He further deposed that during his partnership
business with the wife of the accused, out of the profit share, he gave her Rs.40
Lakhs, and in the year, 2003, Ponung Osik requested him to give her an amount
of about Rs.60 Lakhs as loan for starting a hotel business and accordingly, he
paid her an amount of Rs.62 Lakhs as loan, and later on, she returned the said
amount within a period of One year. During cross examination. PW.10 stated that
the financial condition of Ponung Osik was sound and he does not know whether
Ponung Osik used the amount which he lent her for the purpose of Hotel
business.
19. PW.11, Smit Roitong Singpho deposed that in the year,
1984, her husband, Mr. C.C. Singpho was the Circle Officer at Along, West Siang
district, Arunachal Pradesh and at that time, the accused was also there as an
Officer of Arunachal Pradesh government. She also deposed that the accused
had good family terms with their family and in the year, 2003, the accused took a
loan of Rs.3,56,000/- from him and later on, in the same year, he returned back
the money to him. During cross examination, in the month of March, 2003, the
Contd…
9 Special (Vig.) (T) Case No.2/2010.
accused took a sum of Rs.3,56,000/- only as loan, and later on, on 09.04.2003,
they had executed a document, Ext.'I' to that effect. She further stated that both
herself and Dr. N.N.Osik (accused) put their signatures thereon. She proved her
signature as Ext.'I'(1).
20. PW.12, Sri Mijing Tayeng deposed that from the year, 2000
to 2003, the accused was the Director of Relief & Rehabilitation under Govt. of
Arunachal Pradesh and at that time, he was Deputy Director in said department
under him and he was not aware of any anomalies in monetary transaction
during tenure of accused as Director of Relief & Rehabilitation.
21. PW.13, Md. Sohrab Ali Hazarika deposed that from the
year, 1998 to 2006, he was serving as Senior Manager as well as Chief Manager
in UCO Bank, Arunachal Pradesh and at that time, he came in contact with the
accused as he happened to be a customer of UCO Bank, Itanagar, and the
accused was having Savings account in UCO Bank, Itanagar. He also deposed
that during his tenure at Itanagar, Mrs. Poonang @ Poonam Osik, wife of the
accused wanted to apply for a loan of about 2 / 3 crores. He further deposed that
as per Bank norms, she was to prove her worthiness by making bulky
transaction, so as a friendly banker, he suggested her to make joint account with
her husband (accused), which may help to get the loan, and subsequently the
account was made Joint Account as both husband and wife frequently used to
come to Bank and they were friendly with the Bank. He proved Ext.18 to be the
SB A/c No.4660 in the name of the accused at UCO Bank, Itanagar branch, which
was provided to police after printing out from the computer. He also deposed that
Ext.18 shows entries from 01.07.2002 to 16.07.2004 and at that time, the
accused was serving as Director of Food & Civil Supplies, Govt. of Arunachal
Pradesh. He also proved the Ext.19 to be the specimen card of the accused,
which was obtained by the bank at the time of opening SB A/c No.4660
dtd.04.10.2002 and he certified all those documents being the Senior Manager of
the Bank. During cross examination, PW.13 stated that during his tenure, the
account of the accused was converted into Joint Account and he could not
exactly remember the date and year of conversion of the said account into Joint
Account and so far he could remember, the amount was sought for by the wife of
the accused for purchasing a hotel. He also deposed that on 16.07.2004, he was
Contd…
10 Special (Vig.) (T) Case No.2/2010.
serving as Senior Manager of UCO Bank, Itanagar Branch and at that time, the
accused was serving as Director of Civil Supplies, Arunachal Pradesh. He proved
Ext.18 to be the Statement of SB A/c No.4660. During cross examination, he
stated that police did not enquire as to who had made the entries in the
computer and provided the statement of account. During cross examination, he
also stated that cheques were drawn in favour of different firms, such as, on
10.12.2002, cheque No.000378835 amounting to Rs.5,13,541/- in the name of
M/s Subansiri Lumb, Ziro, on 10.01.2003, cheque No.485067 amounting to
Rs.3,87,770/- in the name of Rargi Basar, on 13.02.2003, cheque No.344515
amounting to Rs.1,70,00,000/- in the name of Sahil Enterprise, on 05.03.2003,
cheque No.344521 amounting to Rs.25,00,000/- in the name of Krepi Lame, on
25.03.2003, cheque No.344524 amounting to Rs.94,68,974/- in the name of
Khuda Api.
22. PW.14, Sri Ananda Sarma deposed that he was doing
business of carrying PDS articles in Arunachal Pradesh from 2003 to 2005, and
they used to carry those articles from Lakhimpur & Dhemaji districts of Assam
upto Daporizo of Arunachal Pradesh, and at that time, he was attorney holder of
M/S Arunachal Trading Co. whose proprietor was Mr. Karmi Taipodia. He also
deposed that Mr. Likha Majh was known to him, who was also a carriage
contractor of PDS articles in Arunachal Pradesh and during that period, he had
monetary transaction with Likha Majh, and in the year, 2003, Likha Majh
requested him to give an amount of Rs.40 Lakhs as loan, and accordingly, he
made payment of the said amount, and later on, after 2/3 months, Likha Majh
returned back the said amount to him in cash. During cross examination, PW.14
stated that Likha Majh, at the time of borrowing the money amounting to Rs.40
Lakhs from him told him that he was required to pay the said amount to the
accused, and accordingly he gave the said amount.
23. PW.15, Sri Gokia Ajay deposed that during the years, 2001
to 2003, he was the Dist. President of BJP in Kurumkure (Arunachal Pradesh) and
Mr. Nguri Kyokam is his friend. He proved Ext.1, the Gift deed in two pages, by
which, Mr. Nguri Kyokam gifted away a plot of land, mentioned in the schedule of
the deed, to the accused and the said deed was executed in front of him by
Contd…
11 Special (Vig.) (T) Case No.2/2010.
Nguri Kyokam, and he put his signature, Ext.1(1). He also proved Ext.1(2), the
signature of Nguri Kyokam and Ext.1(3) is the signature of the accused.
24. PW.16, Sri Kishan Raj Chetry, deposed that on 23.05.2005,
he was working as Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, (SIC), Itanagar, and
on that day, he lodged one complaint to the Officer-in-charge of Crime Branch to
the effect that while he was investigating the case No.3/2003 u/s 409 IPC
pertaining to carriage contract of PDS, some incriminating documents were
seized and during interrogation of the witnesses, it was revealed that the Director
of Civil Supplies namely Dr. N.N. Osik was abusing his official position as public
servant and he had misappropriated huge unaccounted wealth beyond his means
of earning. He also deposed that they had scrutinized the records of Dr. N.N. Osik
in the United Commercial Bank at Itanagar branch, and going through his
account bearing No.4660, the statement of account between the dates
01.07.2002 to 16.07.2004, the total amount deposited was amounted to
Rs.2,89,43,072/- and this amount was deposited in his personal account, which
goes to indicate that the officer was having habitually accepting bribe by abusing
his official position as public servant, and the amounts were deposited in
different dates by cash, transfer etc. He further deposed that the balance amount
after withdrawing in this account as on 01.07.2004 was Rs.3,962/-, and during
enquiry, they had also come to know that the family and children have amassed
a number of properties in the state of Arunachal Pradesh which is
disproportionate to his known source of income and he could not give any
satisfactory account of that money and this obviously points to the ill-gotten
wealth which has been amassed by him illegally during his tenure as Director of
Civil Supplies, and accordingly, the case was endorsed to Deputy S.P. Sri
C.B.Chetry. During cross examination, he stated that in the F.I.R. he had not
mentioned the names of the persons, who had informed him relating to the
offence committed by the accused as the matter is secret.
25. PW.17, Sri Chandra Bahadur Chetry, the then Deputy
Superintendent of Police (Crime Branch), SIC, Arunachal Pradesh, deposed that
on 07.04.2005, he received the Case Diary of Case NO.6/2005 from the then
Inspector, Crime Branch, Mr. R. Mompa, who had conducted part investigation,
and he had conducted raid in the house and premises of accused, Sri N.N.Osik
Contd…
12 Special (Vig.) (T) Case No.2/2010.
and recovered certain incriminating materials from his possession in connection
with this case and those materials were seized vide Seizure List, Ext.3, and
during investigation, he had seized kutcha money receipt of Rs.1 Lakh only
signed by Smt Kapar, another kutcha receipt of Rs.1 Lakh only, kutcha receipt of
Rs.50,000/- only and another kutcha receipt of Rs.2 Lakhs only. He also deposed
that seizure was made on 11.04.2005 in presence of witnesses, Sri K.S. Bist, the
Vigilance Officer and Sri R. Mompa, Inspector, SIC and in presence of the
accused, some other incriminating materials were also seized from the
possession of the accused on 11.04.2005. He further deposed that during the
course of investigation, subsequently on 23.08.2005, he had received a direction
from the then S.P (Crime Branch) for handing over the Case Diary to the
Vigilance Branch and on compliance, he had handed over the Case Diary to Sri
K.S. Bist, the then SI of the Vigilance Branch. During cross examination, PW.17
stated that on 18.06.2005, he had seized money receipt from the wife of the
accused, which was executed on 18.06.2003. He stated that during his part
investigation, he did not try to ascertain how much amount of loan has been
taken individually by the accused and by his wife, Mrs. Poonam Osik as he did
not get any time to complete this part of investigation since he was the In-charge
of the case only for four months.
26. PW.18, Sri Mari Riba deposed that on 25th August, 2005, he
was working as D.S.P. at Itanagar, and on that day, he was entrusted by the then
Sr. Superintendent of Police (SIC), Itanagar to investigate the case, and
accordingly, he had received the Case Diary on 25.08.2005, and after receipt of
the Case Diary, he took up the investigation of the case and recorded the
statement of the witnesses namely Sri Takam Pario, Sri Marshel Lego, Sri Nikh
Tapa, Sri Likha Maj and Tiyuk Tapak, and during the course of investigation, the
statement of Saving Bank Account of Dr. N.Lego of United Commercial Bank,
Itanagar Branch was seized. He also deposed that during investigation, it was
revealed that the accused had accumulated an amount of Rs.2.89 Crore for the
period from 04.10.2002 to 31.12.2003 during his tenure as Director of Civil
Supplies, Arunachal Pradesh, and it also reveals that Mrs. Ponung Osik wanted to
purchase one hotel at Itanagar and in order to do so, she had taken loan from
various persons, and during the course of investigation money receipts were
recovered from the possession of the wife of the accused and it was seized by
Contd…
13 Special (Vig.) (T) Case No.2/2010.
earlier I.O which was handed over to him, and after receipt of said documents,
he wrote to then Chief Secy. Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh to accord necessary
prosecution sanction to launch prosecution against the accused and
subsequently, he received the prosecution sanction, and in the meantime, he
received one instruction from S.S.P (SIC) (Vigilance) PTC, Banderdewa for taking
steps. He also deposed that on instruction of SSP, he had verified the A/c
No.4665 of UCO Bank and found during the period from 04.10.2002 to
08.04.2003 an amount of Rs.80,74,63,266/- were deposited being contractor bill
from FCI, Guwahati for further payment to the Govt. contractors in different
dates and during the course of investigation, he was assisted by SI K.S. Bist. He
further deposed that during investigation, the accused had given explanation that
he had taken the said amount as loan through his wife, but the entire amount
was transferred to his account and not in the account of his wife, Ponung Osik,
and it also revealed to him that the entire amount was deposited in the bank A/c
No.4660 in UCO Bank by various PDS contractors as commission. SI K.S. Bist and
SI S.K. Thongdok verified the data available in the computer system of the bank
and during investigation, SI K.S. Bist had seized certain documents from UCO
Bank, Itanagar Branch. He further deposed that from the materials collected
during investigation, he found that A/c No.4660 of UCO Bank was opened on
04.12.2000 by the accused and prior to conversion of the personal account into
joint account with Smti Punom Osik on 04.11.2004, he found that cash amount
of Rs.200/- only deposited on 04.10.2002, and thereafter amount of Rs.9 Lakhs
was deposited on 08.10.2002, Rs.6 Lakhs was deposited on 10.10.2002, Rs.2
Lakhs was deposited on 19.10.2002 and on different dates some amounts were
deposited and ultimately which comes to Rs.2,89,43,071/-, as certified by the
Branch Manager, UCO Bank. He also deposed that from the A/c No.4655 (Govt.
Account), the accused had withdrawn an amount of Rs.5,13,541/-, Rs.3,87,770/-,
Rs.1,70,000/-, Rs.25 Lakhs and Rs.94,68,974/- on different dates from
10.12.2012 to 25.03.2003. He also deposed that as per instruction of S.S.P. he
had verified the A/c No.4665 of UCO Bank operated in the Govt. account against
the Director, Civil Supplies, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh and since opening of the
said account from the period from 04.10.2002 to 08.04.2003, an amount of
Rs.80,74,63,266/- were deposited being contractor bill from FCI, Guwahati for
further payment to the Govt. contractors in different times. He further deposed
that the accounts were verified on the testimony of documents i.e., statement of
Contd…
14 Special (Vig.) (T) Case No.2/2010.
transaction of A/c No.4665 and found a total amount of Rs.4,24,44,743/- have
been withdrawn. He also deposed that an amount of Rs.14,21,000/- had been
deposited in the personal account of the accused i.e., A/C No.4660 vide cheque
No.485560 dtd. 12.04.2003, and an amount of Rs.3,56,000/- had been deposited
in the said personal account of the accused vide cheque No.272726 dtd.
09.04.2003, a sum of Rs.22,00,000/- was deposited vide cheque No.37997
dtd.13.02.2003, another sum of Rs.24,00,000/- & Rs.25,00,000/- were deposited
in the said personal account of the accused on 19.02.2003 and 19.03.2003
respectively, an amount of Rs.35,00,000/- vide cheque No.073672 dtd.
14.02.2003, an amount of Rs.20,27,000/- vide cheque No.484872 dtd.
06.03.2003, an amount of Rs.35,00,000/- vide cheque No.488651 dtd.
14.02.2003 were deposited in the personal account of the accused i.e., A/c
No.4660. He also deposed that on completion of investigation, he had submitted
the charge sheet against the accused u/s 13(2) and 13(1)(B) of the P.C. Act.
27. During cross examination, PW.18 stated that the Charge
sheet in the instant case was finally submitted by Mr. M. Kaye after completing
further investigation. Originally, Mr. K.R. Chetry lodged FIR against the accused
person. He also stated that the case was initially investigated into by Mr. C.B.
Chetry, Dy. S.P. (SIT), and the case (Case No.6/2005) was charge sheeted by him
vide CS No.1/2006 dtd. 18.04.2006 u/s 31(d) RW 13(2) P.C. Act, and at that
time, prosecution sanction was obtained from D. Sahu, IAS, Secy (Personal) vide
Ext.24. He also stated that Ext.23 is the forwarding report of Special Judge,
Arunachal Pradesh, West Zone, Yupia, remitting the case back to SIC (Vig) for
further investigation of GR No.65/2005, and after going through the record, he
found that there was no sufficient material to frame charge against the accused,
for which the case was sent for further investigation, and for further
investigation, SP Yadav was pre-occupied, so Mr. M. Kaye was endorsed to
investigate this case, who was the Inspector of police at that time and such type
of corruption cases are to be investigated by the person not below the rank of
D.S.P. He stated that Tanyuk Tapo (PW.1) stated before him that he lent some
money to the wife of the accused, Punam Osik and he also issued some receipts.
He also stated that Takam Pario (PW.6) stated before him that he lent Rs.20
Lakhs to the wife of the accused during the year, 2005 and another sum of Rs.50
Lakhs. He further stated that he had engaged one officer to get record the
Contd…
15 Special (Vig.) (T) Case No.2/2010.
statement of Marshel Lego (PW.7), who had stated before him that there was
business transaction between the wife of the accused and him and he paid
Rs.80/ 90 Lakhs to the wife of the accused for business purpose. In course of
cross examination, he also stated that all the witnesses stated that the PDS
contractors gave money to Punam Osik, the wife of the accused for doing
business, and the accused deposited the amount in his Joint account with his
wife, and initially the account was in the name of the accused, and subsequently
it was converted to Joint account on 04.11.2004. He further stated that Takam
Tadu stated before him that the wife of the accused wanted to buy a three star
hotel in Itanagar (A.P). He also stated that he also examined the witnesses,
namely Nick Tapo (PW.8), Game Ete (PW.9), Marshel Lego (PW.7), Ananda Sarma
(PW.14) and S.A.Hazarika (PW.13), Sr. Manager of the Bank and all of them had
stated before him that they had lent some money to the wife of the accused
person and they had also shown money receipts to him and the total amount
collected by the wife of the accused is Rs.2.89 Crores. He also stated that he did
not seize the cheques of withdrawal made by the accused relating to Govt. A/c
No.4655. He also stated that the accused and his wife stated before him that
some money was collected from different persons by the wife of the accused for
purchasing Three-star hotel, and as the hotel could not be purchased later on,
out of the amount collected, some amount was returned to those persons by
cash and also by cheques. He denied that the accused did not commit any
offence under Prevention of Corruption Act.
28. PW.19, SI Krishna Singh Bist deposed that on 07.12.2005,
he was working as SI of Vigilance Branch, Itanagar (A.P), and on that day, Mr. M.
Riba, the I.O of SIC Case No.6/2005 authorised him to investigate and to collect
the documents pertaining to this case. He also deposed that on receipt of
authorization letter (Ext.15), he went to the UCO Bank, Itanagar Branch along
with SI S.K. Thandok and met Mr. S.A. Hazarika, the then Sr. Branch Manager,
UCO Bank, and as per his requests, said Sr. Branch Manager furnished him the
computer statement of A/c NO.4660 standing in the name of the accused in the
said branch. During cross examination, he stated that he was not authorised by
the Home Department to investigate the case under Prevention of Corruption
Act, and he knows that the offence relating to Prevention of Corruption Act is
required to be investigated by the police officer not below the rank of DSP.
Contd…
16 Special (Vig.) (T) Case No.2/2010.
29. PW.19, Sri Deba Prasad Dutta deposed that on 03.01.2007,
he was working as D.S.P, SIC (Vig.) at Banderdewa (Arunachal Pradesh), and on
that day, he received an order from the then Dy. Commissioner cum Special
Judge, Yupia (A.P) in connection with SIC (Vig) Case No.6/2005 instructing him
to conduct further investigation, and the then D.S.P Mr. R.Yongcha verbally asked
him to take up the case. He also deposed that on 04.01.2007, he received a
written formal order from the D.I.G to investigate the case vide Order No.SIC
(Vig) FIR-6/2005 dtd. 04.01.2007, and accordingly, he sent a petition to the
Special Judge praying for returning the documents in connection with Case
NO.6/2005, and subsequently, he received the required documents on
28.05.2007 from the court, and in the meantime, he was transferred and on
28.05.2007, he had handed over the document to Mr. S.C.Yadav, the then D.S.P
(Vig.).
30. PW.20, Sri Subhash Chandra Yadav deposed that he had
been transferred from Special branch, PS Itanagar to SIC (Vig.) Itanagar in May,
2007 and the case No.6/2005 u/s 31(e) of PC Act against accused, Dr. N.N.Osik
@ N. Lego has been registered at SIC (Vig.) Itanagar, and the said case was
initially investigated by many Investigating Officers and the case was registered
on the basis of allegations made by Mr. M.Riba, the then S.P. against the alleged
accused for acquiring assets which are disproportionate to his legal source of
income, and the case was charge sheeted by the I.O. in the Special Judge, West
Yupia, Itanagar, and thereafter, this case was returned to SIC (Vig.) for further
investigation to ascertain the points raised by the honourable Court in November,
2006. He also deposed that he took up investigation on 29.05.2007 and there
were so many shortcomings on the part of investigation to find out the income,
assets moveable and immoveable and liabilities of the alleged accused from
known source of income. He also deposed that he summoned many witnesses
and issued notices to the concerned authorities for documents and the kutcha
slips and other bills etc. were seized by him from the house of the accused at the
time of searching made in his residence. He also deposed that this case is off-suit
of the main case bearing No.3/2003. No period was given in the investigation for
calculation of income, assets as it requires for check period in this case in hand
and thereafter, this case was transferred from him to his junior colleague,
Inspector, Mohan Kayi on 20.07.2007, and accordingly this case was given to him
Contd…
17 Special (Vig.) (T) Case No.2/2010.
on that day and the next I.O. submitted the charge sheet abruptly without
conducting any investigation. He further deposed that he issued letter to
educational institution and schools, where son and daughter of the alleged
accused have studied, for ascertaining the expenditures, but no expenditures
have been ascertained on the upkeepment of each vehicle, and the Kutcha
receipts and other receipts had shown the names of persons, who were doing
business/ contact under department of Civil Supplies, which was headed by the
alleged accused person. He further deposed that there were numerous entries of
high amounts in the personal saving Account bearing No.4660 in the name of
accused person at UCO Bank, Itanagar and most of the documents have been
submitted in the court of Judl. Magistate, Sepa, West Kameng district at the time
of submitting the charge sheet in the above referred case, but the investigation
of the case was transferred to another I.O. He also deposed that he examined
3/4 persons, and they are Nikh Tapar, Gokin Ajay and Mizing Tayeng and seized
some documents. During cross examination, PW.21 denied that he had not
recorded the true statements of Nikh Tapar, Gokin Ajay and Mizing Tayeng, while
examining them u/s 161 CrPC.
31. PW.21, SI Mohan Kaye deposed that on 20.07.2007, he
was posted as Inspector, SIC (Vig.), Arunachal Pradesh, and on that day, he was
entrusted for re-investigation of the instant case and before him, many
Investigating Officers conducted the investigation of the case. He also deposed
that Sri Subhash Ch. Yadav, the then Addl. SP (now retired) was his immediate
predecessor, and he hardly had 19/ 20 days time for investigation. He also
deposed that he scrutinised the documents which were seized by the earlier I.Os.
and on the basis of the statements of the witnesses recorded by his previous
I.Os, he had given finishing touch and submitted the charge sheet and prior to
filing of charge sheet, he did not obtain any prosecution sanction. He also
deposed that Prosecution sanction was previously obtained u/s 19 of the P.C. Act
and he had enclosed the prosecution sanction along with the charge sheet which
was obtained for the offence u/s 13 of the P.C Act. He proved the Order of
prosecution sanction as Ext.27 and the Final Form as Ext.28. He also proved his
signature as Ext.28(1). He also proved the charge sheet as Ext.29 and his
signature as 29(1). During cross examination, PW.22 stated that there is no seal
impression under the name of the Under Secretary in Ext.27. He had gone
Contd…
18 Special (Vig.) (T) Case No.2/2010.
through the sanctioning Order. He denied that Ext.27, the Prosecution sanction is
simply a verbatism of the I.O. and therefore, it is not a sanctioning order. He also
denied that the sanctioning authority has not mentioned any sanctioning report
as to whether they had verified the relevant documents before granting sanction.
He further denied that the accused could not be removed from his service except
by the order of Governor as at the time of occurrence, he was working as
Director of Civil Supplies. He also stated that he does not know whether the Jt.
Secy. can directly remove the accused from his service or not. He also denied
that he was not entrusted by the S.P. to investigate the case and he suo moto did
investigation of the case, for which he had not examined any new witness. He
also stated that he met the wife of the accused during investigation and he came
to know that she took loan from various persons including Takam Tado to open a
hotel, and as per record, all those loan amount were deposited by her in the
account of her husband/ accused bearing A/C No.4660 in the UCO Bank. He
further stated that the wife of the accused had fixed deposit of Rs.15,11,342/-
and she took loan of Rs.1,77,06,342/- in total from various persons, and the
accused also took loan of Rs.57,77,000/- and deposited in the said account
during the period from 04.10.2002 to 04.07.2004. In cross examination, he
denied that the accused is falsely implicated in this case and he had submitted
the charge sheet without any basis and without having any sufficient materials
against the accused. He also stated that he had not examined any person from
Income Tax department and had not verified the cheques, which were deposited
in the account of the accused.
32. DW.1, Dr. N.N. Osik, the accused, deposed that he was
serving as Director of Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs (A.P) from July,
2002 to August, 2003, and the allegation levelled against him in this case is
totally baseless. He also deposed that he had two Accounts in UCO Bank,
Itanagar branch, one is departmental A/C (A/C No.4655) and the other one is his
personal A/C (A/C No.4660), and the SIC alleged that he had withdrawn approx.
Rs.3 Crores, but that was actually the payment made by him to the PDS
contractors through Govt. cheques. He also deposed that the UCO Bank Manager
in writing has given him certificate that the wrong entry was due to error in
computer system of UCO Bank. He further deposed that his wife, Punang Lego
and one Talam Togo, who is a businessman desired to purchase a readymade
Contd…
19 Special (Vig.) (T) Case No.2/2010.
hotel at Itanagar, for which his wife approached UCO Bank manager for taking
loan from the bank and the Bank Manager advised her to show huge transaction
in the Account to have the loan, so his wife started borrowing money from her
well wishers, relatives and business partners. He furthermore deposed that the
UCO Bank Manager advised her that she should open separate account and the
money could be deposited in his A/C which could be converted into joint A/c, and
that is why, they deposited their borrowed money into his personal account. He
also deposed that his wife did contract works since 1986 under PWD, RWD, WRD
etc. and she also did business in connection with timber operation, paddy
cultivation, mustard cultivation, onion cultivation etc. thereby used to earn
handsome profit from her business and her annual income was not less than 20
lakhs. He also deposed that her loan amount was deposited in his A/c No.4660
and subsequently, the hotel was not purchased by his wife and her business
partner as he advised her not to purchase the same, and ultimately they
relinquished the idea of purchasing readymade hotel, for which in the first half of
the year, 2003, he returned the entire amount of money to the persons, from
whom she borrowed the same. He also deposed that the names of the persons
from whom his wife took loan are Zarkar Gamlin, Takam Pario, Marshall Lego,
Gami Ete, Nick Tapa etc. and he also took loan of Rs.14,21,000/- from Zarkar
Gamlin. He proved the money receipt of the said transaction as Ext.’J’. and
subsequently, he returned the said amount vide cheque No.AY 84485560
dtd.12.04.2003. He also deposed that the allegation levelled against him is totally
false and baseless. During cross examination, he stated that he was working as
Director of Food & Civil Supplies, Arunachal Pradesh, from July, 2002 to August,
2003 and Sri Tayo Kapak, Takam Pario, Nick Tapa, Gamit Ete and Jarkar Gamlin
were PDS contractors and PDS nominees, and Smti Punang Osik @ Lego is his
wife, who used to earn about Rupees 15 / 20 Lakhs per year by doing business
and she was also a contractor under PWD, RWD etc. departments. He stated that
he has not submitted any work order to show that his wife used to do contract
works under Govt. departments as stated above. He denied that his wife did not
do contract works, for which he failed to submit any work order to show that she
was a contractor. He also stated that his wife also used to do timber business
etc. and in Arunachal Pradesh, Trade License is not required. He also stated that
he has not submitted any partnership-deal certificate in this case. He denied that
his wife did not carry on any business, for which he could not submit any
Contd…
20 Special (Vig.) (T) Case No.2/2010.
document to show that she used to do business. He also denied that he has not
submitted any income certificate to show that annual income of his wife was
Rs.15 / 20 Lakhs and during 2002, he had a personal account bearing No.4660 in
UCO Bank at Itanagar and another departmental account bearing No.4655 was
also there in UCO Bank, Itanagar, and he used to make transactions in the said
departmental account being the Director of Food & Civil Supplies. He also stated
that the A/c No.4660 (personal account) which was in the name of his wife was
made as Joint A/c with him, but he has forgotten the date on which it was made
as Joint A/c, and the personal A/c No.4660 was opened when he was working as
Director of Food & Civil Supplies. He also stated that he made application for
converting the personal A/c to joint A/c vide Ext.21. He also stated that his wife
intended to purchase a readymade hotel, for which his wife desired to take loan
from bank and when they approached the Bank, the Bank Manager advised his
wife to make bulky transactions so as to get a bulky loan amount, for which he
converted the said personal account to Joint A/c with a view to take loan. He
denied that he has deposed falsely that his wife took loan from her relatives, well
wishers, partners and PDS contractors. He also denied that he had received
commissions from the PDS contractors and PDS nominees. He further stated that
from the year, 2002 to 30.04.2003, an amount of Rs.80,75,10,488/- might have
been deposited in the Joint A/c, but he has forgotten the exact amount. He also
stated that he used to disburse bill amount to the PDS contractors from the said
Govt. A/c bearing No.4655 and he has forgotten the exact amount which were
deposited in the A/c No.4660 within the period as follows :
From 04.10.2002 to 01.07.2004 = Rs.2,89,43,071/-. On 08.10.2002 = Rs.9,00,000/-. On 10.10.2002 = Rs.6,00,000/-. On 19.10.2002 = Rs.2,00,000/-. On 06.01.2003 = Rs.6,00,000/-. On 09.01.2003 = Rs.17,00,000/-. On 10.01.2003 = Rs.8,00,000/-. On 11.01.2003 = Rs.9,00,000/-. On 06.02.2003 = Rs.3,00,000/-. On 14.02.2003 = Rs.97,00,000/-. On 15.02.2003 = Rs.9,00,000/-. On 19.02.2003 = Rs.24,00,000/-. On 06.02.2003 = Rs.27,27,000/-. On 19.03.2003 = Rs.25,00,000/-. On 08.04.2003 = Rs.1,84,000/-. On 08.04.2003 = Rs.3,94,141/-. On 08.04.2003 = Rs.5,00,000/-.
Contd…
21 Special (Vig.) (T) Case No.2/2010.
On 09.04.2003 = Rs.3,56,000/-. On 12.04.2003 = Rs.14,21,000/-. On 18.06.2003 = Rs.6,00,000/-. On 28.06.2003 = Rs.15,11,342/-. On 01.07.2003 = Rs.2,90,684/-. On 16.07.2003 = Rs.1,00,000/-. On 30.12.2003 = Rs.12,00,000/-. On 02.01.2004 = Rs.3,696/-. On 01.07.2004 = Rs.68/- (interest). 33. He also stated that from 1990 to May, 2005, he received
Rs.28,13,892/- as salary. He denied that he paid income tax and he does not
know whether his Income Tax statement shows his taxable income during 2002-
2003 as NIL and his wife’s Income Tax statement shows her taxable income
during 2002- 2003 as NIL.
34. DW.2, Smti Punang Osik deposed that in the year, 2002,
she approached the Bank Manager of UCO Bank, Itanagar, for a loan with a view
to purchase a readymade hotel, but the Manager asked her to show huge
transaction to get the loan, for which she took loan from her well wishers and
relatives to show transaction and deposited the same in the A/c of her husband.
She deposed that she has already submitted the connected receipts in this case
and subsequently, she cancelled her plan to purchase readymade hotel, and later
on, her husband/ accused returned the said amount to those persons from whom
she borrowed the said amount. She also deposed that she also took loan of an
amount of Rs.30 Lakhs from LICI on 09.11.2004 vide cheque No.841867 and she
has submitted the money receipts showing taking loan. She further deposed that
she did contract works under PWD, RWD, WRD etc. and she has also piggery
firm, poultry firm, Mithun firm etc. and thereby she used to earn from various
cultivations also and her annual income was Rs.20 – 25 Lakhs, and she used to
deposit her earned money into the A/c of her husband, and the allegation
levelled against her husband is totally false and baseless. During cross
examination, DW.2 stated that during the year, 2002 to 2003, she used to do
timber business, cultivations and other business, and also used to do contract
works under PWD, RWD etc. and she has documents to show that she used to
do business. She also stated that she used to do partnership business also, but
she has not submitted any document to show that she was doing business. She
denied that she did not do any business, for which she could not submit any
Contd…
22 Special (Vig.) (T) Case No.2/2010.
document in this regard. She also stated that she has not submitted any work
order to show that she used to do contract works. She denied that she deposed
falsely that she used to earn Rs.15 / 20 Lakhs from her business. She further
stated that her husband was serving as Director of Food & Civil Supplies,
Arunachal Pradesh till the year, 2003 from 2002. She denied that they converted
the personal A/c into the Joint A/c with a view to save her husband/ accused
from illegal transactions made in the said account. She also stated that they took
loan from Sri Takam Tada, Jarkar Gamlin, Takam Pario, Likha Maj, Nick Tapa and
Game Ete. She also denied that with a view to show that they took loan from
those persons, they opened the Joint A/c.
35. Having regard to the above evidence as a whole, it is seen
that huge amount of money amounting to Rs.2.89 Crores was found deposited in
the UCO Bank, Itanagar branch in the personal account having numbered 4660
of the accused, Dr. N.N. Osik @ N. Lego, the then Director of Civil Supplies,
Naharlagun (Arunachal Pradesh). The period of deposit was shown from
04.10.2002 to 04.07.2004 and it was during this period, said accused was
holding the charge of Director of Civil Supplies (Arunachal Pradesh). It is also
seen from the evidence as a whole that Smti Punang Osik, the wife of the
accused was doing different kinds of business like transportation, timber,
contractual work etc. and earned some amount of money which were deposited
from time to time in the personal account of the accused. It is also come into the
evidence from the side of the prosecution witnesses and the defence witnesses
that during the relevant period in between 04.10.2002 to 01.07.2004, the wife of
the accused took various loan from her business partners and deposited the said
amount in the personal account of her husband/ accused, which was
subsequently converted into joint account of both husband and wife. Some of the
prosecution witnesses supported the claim of the accused by proving the money
receipts executed by them, by which they had provided loans to the wife of the
accused. However, the evidence as well as the exhibits show that the total
money earned by the accused by known source of his income was
Rs.30,67,966/-, but there is no evidence to the effect that the accused made
expenditure during this period on account of his personal as well as domestic
purpose. So far the income tax assessment are concerned, it is seen that during
the check period i.e., 2001 - 2002 and 2002 – 2003, the assets possessed by the
Contd…
23 Special (Vig.) (T) Case No.2/2010.
accused was to the tune of Rs.59,14,748 and Rs.61,29,526/- during the check
period while from his known source of income including salary, his income was to
the extent of Rs.5,70,000/- and Rs.6,97,462/- respectively for the period, 2001-
2002 and 2002-2003. The assets of his wife during the aforesaid period was
about Rs.3.17 Crores and Rs.3.22 Crores whereas, during this period, but her
income was Rs.10.39 Lakhs and Rs.23.59 Lakhs respectively. Therefore, the bank
deposit of Rs.2.89 Crores in the personal account No.4660 of the accused, which
is claimed to be the loan availed by his wife for doing business assumed great
importance. It is no doubt true that Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules,
particularly Rule 15(3) thereof, there is reasonable obligation on the part of a
government officer to inform his employer of any business or commercial
activities, in which his family members may be involved. Such type of rules no
doubt also applies to the accused, but no evidence is available on record to
indicate that the accused has duly informed the concerned authority in the State
Govt. about the business transactions as well as various business undertaken by
his wife. It is also very evident from the evidence available on record that the
wife of the accused claimed to have business dealings with the contractors with
whom the accused had to deal with in course of his official duty as Director of
Food and Civil Supplies (A.P). It is also noticed in the evidence that during the
period when various deposits of money were made in the bank account of the
accused only, and subsequently, when said money were withdrawn from the
aforesaid bank account of the accused, the aforesaid account of the accused was
converted and operated as Joint account by the accused and his wife. In that
view of the matter, let us go to Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
which relates to criminal misconduct by a public servant. It is also apparently
clear from Section 13(1)(e) of the said Act, if he or any person or on his behalf,
is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office in possession,
for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account of the pecuniary
resources or properties disproportionate to his known source of income, the
public servant, is said to have committed the offence of criminal misconduct. The
explanation given in the same section is also very much relevant to be looked
into. Explanation : “For the purpose of this Section, ‘known source of income’
means income, receipt from any lawful source and such receipt has been
intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the
Contd…
24 Special (Vig.) (T) Case No.2/2010.
time being applicable to a public servant”. Thus, it is evidently clear that the
income receipt should be very lawful source and such receipts ought to have
been intimated to the authority concerned. Admittedly, the accused had filed
income tax return relating to the period, 1990 to 2005, which shows that his
income was Rs.28,13,892/- and income tax payable by him was nil. In view of
the above provisions, the Prevention of Corruption Act was no doubt intended to
make effective provisions for prevention of corruption, ramping amongst the
public servants. It is also no doubt true that it is a social legislation which is
defined to curb illegal activities of the public servant. Procedural delay as
technicalities of law cannot be permitted to defeat the objective sought to be
achieved by the Prevention of Corruption Act. The social object as well as overall
public interest is required to be kept in mind while dealing with various provisions
of said Act. As such, in view of the explanation to Sec.13(1)(e) of the Act, ‘known
source of income’, for the purpose of satisfying the court, should be ‘any lawful
source’. Besides being lawful source, the explanation further shows that the
receipt of such income should have been intimated by the public servant in
accordance with the provisions of Law applicable to such public servant at the
relevant time. Therefore, a public servant cannot just escape from tentacles of
Sec.13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act by showing legally forbidden
source.
36. Having regard to the above position, Section 13 of the P.C.
Act deals with various situation when a public servant can be said to have
committed criminal misconduct. Section 13 (1) (e) of the P.C. Act is applicable
when a public servant or any person on his behalf is in possession or has, at any
time during the period of his office, be in possession, for which the public servant
cannot satisfactorily account the pecuniary resources or properties
disproportionate to his known source of income. As per the explanation
appended, prosecution is relieved of the burden of investigating into the source
of income of an accused to a greater extent as it is evident in the explanation
that ‘known source of income’ means income, receipt from any lawful source, the
receipt of which has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of law,
rules, orders for the time being applicable to a public servant. The expression,
‘known source of income’ has been known to the prosecution after thorough
investigation of the case. It is not contended that ‘known source of income’
Contd…
25 Special (Vig.) (T) Case No.2/2010.
means the source known to the accused. Prosecution cannot in a very nature of
things be expected to know all the affairs of an accused and those will be
matters specifically within the knowledge of the accused and same covers within
Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. As such, a burden is always on the
accused not only to offer a plausible explanation as to how he came to amass
large wealth, but also to satisfy the court that his explanation was worthy of
acceptance. However, it is for the prosecution to prove that the accused or any
person on his behalf has been in possession of pecuniary resources or properties
disproportionate to his known source of income and when the onus is discharged
by the prosecution, it is for the accused to account satisfactorily for
disproportionate of the properties possessed by him. That means, the accused
has to satisfy the court that his explanation is worthy of acceptance. Now, the
evidence on record shows that the accused had bank account in UCO Bank
bearing No.4660 and in that said account, total amount of Rs.2,89,43,072/- has
been deposited from time to time, as per version of PW.16 and after withdrawal
of some amount from time to time the balance amount as on 01.07.2004 was
Rs.3,962/-. The said amount must be added to the assets of the accused and his
wife. If that is the total salary during the period as stated above, the accused
must have used at least say 25% of his income from the salary towards food and
other expenses of his family, which is quite reasonable. DW.1 and DW.2 have
deposed that the wife of the accused i.e., DW.2 was doing works of contracts as
well as timber business and other business and she used to earn from her
business. However, she has not produced any account to show the scale of her
various business. According to DWs, the wife of the accused had taken loan for
buying a Five Star Hotel in Arunachal Pradesh. It is stated that an amount of
Rs.95 Lakhs has been availed from various persons, who are nothing but PDS
contractors who during that period when the accused was Director of Civil
Supplies, had availed contractual work from the department and evidence shows
that they had received various amounts towards payment and after receipt of
such payment from the department, various deposits were made in the personal
account of the accused. The accused has to satisfy the court that explanation is
worthy of acceptance. It is stated that the amount of Rs.2.89 crores were availed
by his wife towards availing loan in order to purchase a Five Star hotel, but
subsequently, they had given up the idea of purchasing the hotel, and
accordingly, she returned the money to the persons from whom such loan
Contd…
26 Special (Vig.) (T) Case No.2/2010.
amounts were availed. In this regard, Ext.A was provided by the accused which
indicates that in the year, 2000, the wife of the accused and her business
partners agreed to purchase a readymade hotel in Arunachal Pradesh and in the
year, 2000, they had abandoned the plan to purchase hotel, and accordingly
returned the money from whom they had availed as loan. Interestingly, the
offence had taken place during the year, 2002 to 2003. Therefore, in view of
their own document, question of depositing the amounts, which were collected
as loan for hotel business, in A/c No.4660 of the accused cannot rise at all, and if
such loan have been taken, the same was returned in the year, 2000 itself. In
this context, PW.1, PW.2, PW.8 and PW.10 deposed that the wife of the accused
had been doing business and her earning was found to be Rs.15 – 20 Lakhs as
she has many business concerns from where, she also made a plan to set up a
readymade Five Star hotel at Itanagar. So, money was collected and same was
deposited in the Bank account No.4660, which was the personal bank account of
the accused maintained in UCO Bank, but PW.2, on the other hand, stated that
during the year, 2000, he and the wife of the accused had proposed to start a
joint venture by purchasing a readymade hotel at Naharlagun and for that
purpose, they collected money from their various friends, relatives and well
wishers and deposited in the bank account of the wife of the accused, thereby
suggesting that the money collected by them was not deposited in the personal
account of the accused. However, according to him, the project of purchasing a
readymade hotel was abandoned by them subsequently, and the collected
money was returned to the persons, from whom it was taken. As stated above,
during cross examination, PW.2 admitted that he had signed the Ext.A, the
declaration dtd. 14.10.2000, and in that declaration, he had mentioned that an
amount of Rs.95 Lakhs was collected from various persons, but when the idea of
purchasing readymade hotel was given up, the amount collected by them was
returned to the persons from whom, it was collected in the year, 2001-2002, and
he did not remember the exact date. Interestingly, as per Ext.A, it was the year,
2000, when this PW and the wife of the accused had agreed to purchase a
readymade hotel, but in that very year, they had abandoned the plan to
purchase readymade hotel and returned the money, which was collected as
already discussed above. Now, when the wife of the accused as well as this PW.2
gave up the idea to purchase hotel in the year, 2000, the collected money was
returned in the same year, 2000. But, the offence allegedly committed by the
Contd…
27 Special (Vig.) (T) Case No.2/2010.
accused covers the period of years, 2002-2003, and as such, the question of
depositing the collected money to the tune of Rs.95 Lakhs for the purpose of
purchasing a readymade hotel in the personal account of the accused cannot
arise as because the said plan of purchasing hotel, which was started in the year,
2000 and the money collected for that purpose was also returned in the year,
2000 when the plan to purchase the readymade hotel was abandoned in that
year, 2000. It is no doubt true that the A/c No.4660 maintained in the UCO Bank
stands only in the name of the accused person, which was opened only in the
year, 2002. However, the said account was converted to Joint account and the
application for such conversion was only made in the year, 2004, which would be
evident from Ext.22. Coming to PW.3, who is a PDS contractor at the relevant
time, stated that he had given an amount of Rs.14,21,000/- to the accused in the
year, 2003, but the accused in his defence evidence did not give any sort of
explanation as to why this PW.3 gave him such a huge amount of money. PW.14
is also a carriage contractor in Arunachal Pradesh, and during the period in
question, he had monetary transaction with one, Likha Maj during the year, 2003
and at the request of said Likha Maj, he had given an amount of Rs.40 Lakhs as
loan. In his cross examination, he admitted that the said money was given to the
accused by way of a cheque. Here also, the accused had not given any kind of
explanation as to why such huge amount of Rs.40 Lakhs was given to him by a
PDS contractor to him at that point of time. Ext.30 shows that the salary income
of the accused for the period from 1990 to May, 2005, which in total comes to
Rs.28,13,892/-. The income tax certificates, Ext.31, 32, 33 as well as 34 show
the income tax of the accused and his wife to be NIL for the period of 2002-2003
and 2003- 2004. The accused in his evidence has failed to give any satisfactory
explanation about the amount of Rs.2,89,43,071/-, which was found deposited in
his personal A/c bearing No.4660 maintaining in the UCO Bank, Itanagar.
Although, the accused claimed that the money was collected for the purpose of
purchasing a readymade hotel, but PW.2, as already discussed above, stated that
the money which was collected for purchasing a readymade hotel was returned
in the year, 2000 to the persons from whom it was collected as the plan for
purchasing the said hotel was abandoned. As such, the question of depositing a
huge amount of Rs.95 Lakhs in the personal account of the accused cannot arise
since the amount collected by them from various persons was already returned in
the year, 2000 as the plan for purchasing readymade hotel was abandoned. The
Contd…
28 Special (Vig.) (T) Case No.2/2010.
accused in his deposition stated that there are two accounts, one was
departmental bearing A/c No.4665 and the other is personal account bearing A/c
No.4660 maintained in UCO Bank and the accused was the Director of Food &
Civil Supplies, Arunachal Pradesh from the period, July, 2002 to August, 2003.
During cross examination, he admitted that Takam Pario, Nick Tapa, Jarkar
Gamlin etc. were PDS contractors and nominees, and his wife has taken loan
from said contractors and he also took loan of Rs.14 Lakhs from Jarkar Gamlin,
PDS contractor, but there was nothing to show for what purpose, he availed such
amount of money from the said contractors. Although, it was claimed that the
wife of the accused is a contractor and business woman and she is having
earning of Rs.15 – 20 Lakhs per year, but there is no documentary evidence to
show that she was having such a huge amount of earning.
37. Therefore, the money deposited in the A/c No.4660 in UCO
Bank standing in the name of the accused, which was opened in the year, 2002,
to the tune of Rs.2.89 Crores was found in the said account is nothing but
disproportionate assets of the accused. This is the position which emerges after
adopting very liberal approach towards the accused. The accused is not able to
explain satisfactorily his source of income, which was deposited in his personal
account to the tune of Rs.2.89 Crores. The idea of not to purchase the hotel by
the wife of the accused and returning of the money availed through loan in the
year, 2000 and opening of A/c 4660 in the year, 2002 has shown that there is
gap period of two years and this gap is so large that one cannot resist the
conclusion that this is the earnings from dishonest means. In this regard, it is
pertinent to note that the income of the wife of the accused from her contractual
work as well as various businesses was not provided while adducing any
evidence in support of her income. The accused as well as wife of the accused
did not adduce any evidence as to what nature of work his wife was doing, how
many hours she carries to attend her business, what were her contractual work
etc. There is nothing in their evidence to show that they filed income tax return
to prove the income of the wife of the accused. No single piece of evidence has
been adduced by the accused and his wife to show the status, occupation and
income of the wife of the accused. Had her income been proved the same could
have been taken into consideration and this court could have come to a
conclusion as to whether the wife of the accused has capacity to purchase a
Contd…
29 Special (Vig.) (T) Case No.2/2010.
readymade hotel with assistance of loan as claimed by them to be availed from
other different persons. In absence of sufficient evidence, the plea of the
accused is that his wife was having sufficient income from various business
cannot be accepted in absence of proof of income of his wife through various
business and she was also having some income, the accused cannot claim that
money deposited by his wife after availing loan from different persons in his
account. When the accused fails to discharge his burden, this will lead to a
presumption that the money deposited in his personal bank account, are nothing
but an ill-gotten gain.
38. It is more so in view of the fact that the receipt of such
huge amount of money in his bank account has not been intimated by the
accused in accordance with the provisions of Law to the authority concerned. As
regards the question of sanction, it is not in dispute that the accused belonged to
government service and he has been prosecuted for the offence alleged to have
been committed under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. So, in
view of the Section 19 of the said Act, sanction should be obtained and filed
before the court, of-course appropriate govt. competent authority would be
necessary.
39. The learned counsel for the accused has submitted that
there was no sanction by the prescribed authority or by the authority who was
competent to remove the accused from service. According to him, Ext.27 is the
order of the prosecution sanction, wherein Ext.27(1) is the forwarding report of
the Under Secretary. As the prosecution has failed to examine the sanctioning
authority i.e., the Under Secretary to show whether the said Under Secy. after
due diligence and after going through the relevant documents has accorded
prosecution sanction to prosecute the accused. It is also submitted that there is
nothing to show that the documents were examined by the authority concerned.
There was no application of mind before the grant of prosecution sanction.
Therefore, it amounts to miscarriage of justice. In this regard, the Case Law
reported in 2009 (6) GLR 818 (Tapan Kumar Saha- appellant Versus State of
Tripura- respondent and 1 (1994) CCR 397 (Suresh Chandra Gupta-petitioner
Versus State of U.P- respondent) were relied on. Perused the said Case Law. In
Case Law reported in 2009 (6) GLR 818, the Honourable Gauhati High Court was
Contd…
30 Special (Vig.) (T) Case No.2/2010.
pleased to hold that absence of sanction or any irregularity in granting sanction
would be a deciding factor in those cases, where due to such absence of
irregularity of sanction order, failure of justice has occasioned. Coming to the
Case Law reported in 1 (1994) CCR 397 (Suresh Chandra Gupta-petitioner Versus
State of U.P- respondent), the Honourable Allahabad High Court was pleased to
hold that burden of proof regarding sanction lies on the prosecution, and such
burden of proof includes all the sanctioning authority has given sanction in
reference to the facts on which the proposed prosecution was to be based and
those facts appeared on the face of the sanction and it may be proved by
independent evidence that the sanction has been accorded by the authority after
those have been placed before the sanctioning authority.
40. The learned Special Public Prosecutor by vehemently
opposing the submission of the learned counsel for the accused has contended
that in view of the language of Section 19 of the P.C. Act, as the accused is
unable to show that prejudice would be caused to him, he is not entitled to get
the benefit on this ground. As regards the validity of prosecution sanction,
argument is that the accused was at the relevant time was serving as the
Director of Civil Supplies, Arunachal Pradesh, and when the charge sheet was
filed and sanction was placed on record, which has been accorded by the Joint
Secretary (Personal), Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar on behalf of the Govt.
of Arunachal Pradesh.
41. Having regard to the above, so far the question of sanction
is concerned, a perusal of Section 19 of the P.C. Act would be necessary. Section
19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act says as follows : “Previous sanction
necessary for prosecution. (1) NO court shall take cognizance of an offence
punishable u/s 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been by a public servant,
except with the previous sanction, - (a) in the case of a person who is employed
in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not removable from his office
save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of that Government ; (b)
in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of a State
and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State
Government, of that Government; (c) in the case of any other person, of the
authority competent to remove him from his office. (2) Where for any reason
Contd…
31 Special (Vig.) (T) Case No.2/2010.
whatsoever any doubt arises as to whether the previous sanction as required
under sub-section (1) should be given by the Central Government or the State
Government or any other authority, such sanction shall be given by that
Government or authority which would have been competent to remove the public
servant from his office at the time when the offence was alleged to have been
committed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (a) no finding, sentence or order passed by a Special Judge
shall be reversed or altered by a court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the
ground of the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, the sanction
required under sub-section (1) unless in the opinion of that court, a failure of
justice has in fact been occasioned thereby; (b) no court shall stay the
proceedings under this Act on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in
the sanction granted by the authority, unless it is satisfied that such error,
omission or irregularity has resulted in a failure of justice; (c) no court shall stay
the proceedings under this Act on any other ground and no court shall exercise
the powers of revision in relation in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other
proceedings. (4) In determining under sub-section (3) whether the absence of ,
or any error, omission or irregularity in, such sanction has occasioned or resulted
in a failure of justice the court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection
could and should have been raised at any earlier stage in the proceedings.
Explanation – For the purpose of this section : (a) error includes competency of
the authority to grant sanction; (b) a sanction required for prosecution includes
reference to any requirement that the prosecution shall be at the instance of a
specified authority or with the sanction of a specified person or any requirement
of a similar nature”.
42. In view of the above, Section 19(1) clearly gives a
mandate against every court that it shall not take cognizance of offence
punishable under Sec.7/10/11/13/15 except that the previous sanction of
particular authority. The mandate issued u/s 19(1)(e) is final. Having regard to
the above, it is found from the Ext.27 that the sanction order which has been
placed on record has been accorded in the name of the Governor under his Order
by State Government acting through the Joint Secretary (Personal), Govt. of
Arunachal Pradesh. The said sanction order clearly indicates that sanction was
given by the State Government so as submitted by the learned counsel for the
Contd…
32 Special (Vig.) (T) Case No.2/2010.
accused, Under Secretary was not acting in his own capacity, but it was the Joint
Secretary (Personal), who on behalf of the State Government in the name of the
Governor under his Order had granted prosecution sanction. The sanction order
was detailed having discussed the relevant documents as well as materials
collected during the investigation including the Income Tax assessment report by
the Income Tax officer concerned as well as deed of declaration of assets, known
source of income and from like-transaction of huge amount of Rs.2.89 Crores in
the personal account of the accused, prosecution sanction was granted under the
purview of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
43. Hence, in view of the above, it is seen that the Order of
sanction disclosed that the sanctioning authority has considered the materials
made available by the I.O and the evidence collected in this context as well as
gave reasons in the sanction order for his satisfaction that prosecution of the
accused was necessary. There is also nothing to show that there is any defect or
illegality in the sanction order i.e., in Ext.27. In that view of the matter, it
appears that no prejudice has been caused to the accused as prior sanction from
the authority concerned was obtained for initiation of the proceeding. As such,
the case law relied on by the learned counsel for the accused are not applicable
in the instant case. Ext.27 shows that the facts of the case were seriously
considered by the officer who accorded sanction. There could not be a better
case of the application of mind by the sanctioning authority.
44. Another contention of the learned counsel for the accused
is that in the present case, investigation has not been done as per Section 17 of
the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is submitted that investigation have been
done by one Mr. Mohan Kaye (PW.21), who was an Inspector, and on completion
of investigation, this PW submitted the charge sheet. PW.19 is the another
Investigating Officer, who conducted part investigation of the instant case and he
was also a Sub Inspector of police. Therefore, as per provisions of Section 17(c)
of the Act, investigation was done by a Police Officer, who is below the rank of
Dy. Superintendent of Police, and in that view of the matter, the accused is
entitled to get acquittal from the instant case. On the other hand, the learned
Special Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that about Six nos. of Police
Officers were involved in the instant case. PW.17, PW.18 as well as PW.19 are
Contd…
33 Special (Vig.) (T) Case No.2/2010.
the Dy. Superintendent of Police. PW.20 is the then Superintendent of Police.
However, PW.19 and PW.21 are the Sub Inspector and Inspector respectively.
The contention of the learned Spl. P.P. is that PW.19 only seized certain bank
accounts relating to the personal A/c No.4660 of the accused and the Govt. A/c
No.4665 on the basis of authorisation given by PW.18, who was also an
Investigating Officer of this case. PW.21 simply submitted the charge sheet on
the basis of the authorization given by the then Superintendent of Police. In that
view of the matter, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the accused
cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution case as there was no prejudice
caused to the accused.
45. Having regard to the submissions of both sides, let us deal
with Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Section 17 of the Act deals
with investigation into the case under the Prevention of Corruption Act and it
reads as follows : “Persons authorised to investigate – Notwithstanding anything
contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, no police officer below the
rank, (a) in the case of the Delhi Special Police Establishment, of an Inspector of
police; (b) in the metropolitan areas of Bombay, Calcutta, Madras and
Ahmedabad and in any other metropolitan area notified as such under sub-
section (1) of Section 8 of the CrPC, of an Assistant Commissioner of Police: (c)
elsewhere, of a Deputy Superintendent of Police or a police officer of equivalent
rank, shall investigate any offence punishable under this Act without the order of
a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class, as the case may be,
or make any arrest therefor without a warrant: Provided that if a police officer
not below the rank of an Inspector of Police is authorised by the State
Government in this behalf by general or special order, he may also investigate
any such offence without the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate
of the first class, as the case may be, or make arrest therefor without a warrant;
Provided further that an offence referred to in clause(e) of sub section (1) of
section 13 shall not be investigated without the order of a police officer not
below the rank of a Superintendent of Police.
46. In view of the above, it is seen that Section 17 of the Act
provides that no police officer below the rank of Superintendent of Police in the
case of Delhi Special Police establishment, Asstt. Commandant of Police, in the
Contd…
34 Special (Vig.) (T) Case No.2/2010.
metropolitan, Mumbai any D.S.P. or any other officer equivalent to the rank, shall
investigate a case punishable under P.C. Act with prior order of the Metropolitan
Magistrate or Magistrate 1st class as the case may be, or make any arrest thereof
without warrant. According to the first provision of the above Section, if a Police
officer below the rank of Inspector of police is authorised by the government in
this regard by general or special order, he can also investigate any such offence
without the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate or Magistrate 1st class as the
case may be or make arrest thereof without warrant. So far compliance of this
part of section is concerned, there is no controversy. However, the provisio of
the section provides that when an offence referred to in Sec.13(1)(e) is sought to
be investigated, such investigation shall not be conducted without order of the
Police officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police. A perusal of the
record reveals that the complaint/ ejahar along with the endorsement was put up
before the then Superintendent of Police on 24.05.2005, on which date, the then
Supdt. of Police made an endorsement, “register a case u/s 13(1)(e) of P.C. Act
and endorse the case to Dy. S.P., C.N. Chetri, and accordingly, the case was
registered on the basis of the allegation in the complaint. Thereafter, Sri C.B.
Chetri took up investigation and the investigation, as already disclosed from the
evidence of PW.17, PW.18 and PW.19, Sri Deba Prasad Dutta and PW.20 have
conducted investigation in the instant case and they are of the rank of Dy.
Superintendent of Police. So far the contention of the learned counsel for the
accused is concerned that PW.19, Sri Krishna Singh Bist and PW.20, Sri Mohan
Kaye being the Sub Inspector and Inspector cannot take part in the investigation
and in view of the fact that they had taken part in the investigation, prosecution
case becomes fatal, for which the accused is entitled to get the benefit of
acquittal, is not acceptable.
47. In this context, the learned counsel for the accused has
relied on the case, Suresh Chandra Gupta vs State of U.P. (1) 1974 CCR 397. On
the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State, submitted
that about six nos. of officers were involved in the investigation of the case and
out of those officers, PW.19, Sri Krishna Singh Bist, Sub Inspector and PW.21,
Sri Mohan Kaye, Inspector, took part in the investigation. According to him,
PW.19, Sri Krishna Singh Bist simply seized bank documents relating to A/c
No.4660 and 4665 as authorised by way of Ext.15. The said documents were also
Contd…
35 Special (Vig.) (T) Case No.2/2010.
seized in presence of PW.18, the then Supdt. of Police, Sri Mari Riba. So far
PW.21 is concerned, he also simply submitted the charge sheet. Admittedly, he
was authorised by the Superintendent of Police and he only submitted the charge
sheet, Ext.29, and admittedly, he did not examine any witness. Having regard to
the above, it is seen that there is no denial of the fact that in the instant case
against the accused, it is with the authority of the Supdt. of Police, the I.O was
authorised, PW.19, Sri Krishna Singh Bist to seize a certain bank document in his
presence and same would be evident from Ext.29. Similar order has been passed
by the Supdt. of Police so far PW.21 is concerned, who had simply submitted the
charge sheet. In that view of the matter, as noticed that the said two PWs were
authorised as stated above relating to seizure of bank documents and submission
of charge sheet under authorisation of the Superintendent of Police shows that
the application of mind, and the circumstances, under which the Supdt. of Police
authorised the Inspectors to take such part of investigation. Another
circumstance that the Supdt. of Police granting permission to the said two PWs
to inspect the instant case so far relating to seizure of bank documents and
submission of charge sheet are concerned, investigation as a whole done in the
present case cannot be said to be invalid one. Even if, it is treated that the
investigation has certain defect so far entrustment of investigation to the above
PWs are concerned in that case also, it has no direct bearing. There is nothing to
show that there was illegality in the investigation, which could have brought
miscarriage of justice. Having regard to the above, the reason for entrustment of
some part of investigation as discussed above to the aforesaid two PWs cannot
be construed to work in favour of the accused, which would result trial of a
serious charge made against the accused go hay ware. Therefore, the contention
of the learned counsel for the accused is not acceptable.
48. Even otherwise, it is a settled law that in a complaint about
illegalities or irregularities in the investigation has to be raised at the earliest
stage before the charges are framed. Such a ground cannot be urged at this fag
end of trial, unless it is shown that the accused has been prejudiced by the
alleged investigation made by the above mentioned I.Os. and continuation of
proceeding has resulted in miscarriage of justice. In a case reported in AIR 1955
SC, 196, H.N.Rishbud vs State of Delhi, it is held that the fact of illegality in
investigation, however, serious, has no direct bearing on competence with the
Contd…
36 Special (Vig.) (T) Case No.2/2010.
procedure relating to cognizance of trial. The said decision has been followed in
Manoharlal Sarma vs Principal Secretary, 2014(2) SCC 532. In a case, State of
U.P vs. Kanhailal, 1996 CrLJ 123, it is held that any such defect in investigation
will affect the trial only if it would be shown that the accused has been
prejudiced on the ground of such defect. The accused can only be said to have
been prejudiced if it can be shown that because of the defect, he did not get a
fair trial. Therefore, merely because that there was some irregularity in
investigation, as claimed by the accused relating to seizure made by one I.O and
submission of charge sheet by another I.O. cannot itself lead to an inference that
the accused have been subjected to prejudice or denied a fair trial.
49. However, there is authorization by the Supdt. of Police in
favour of the aforesaid Investigating Officers so as to enable them to cause
seizure of certain documents and submission of charge sheet and the same
would be evident from the evidence adduced in this context. Thus, on cumulative
consideration of these aspects coupled with the evidence on record, this court
has no hesitation to hold that PW.19 and PW.21 were duly authorised to
investigate the offence so far seizure of certain documents and submission of
charge sheet are concerned as per Section 17 and 18 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, and the said authorization are in accordance with the provisions
of Law.
50. Having considered the entire matter, it is seen that the
prosecution could show that ‘known source of income’ of the accused was limited
to Rs.12,67,462/- during the period from 2001 to 2003, but he was found in
possession of assets disproportionate to his ‘known source of income’ to the tune
of at least Rs.2.89 crores, which was found in his personal bank account bearing
A/C No.4660 from the period 04.10.2002 to 01.07.2004 while he was serving as
Director of Food & Civil Supplies, Arunachal Pradesh. Although, some explanation
has been attempted by the accused about acquisition of such huge amount of
Rs.2.89 crores in his personal account, but satisfactory explanation of
disproportionate assets to the tune of at least Rs.2.89 crores could not be given
by the accused during trial. Therefore, the offence of criminal misconduct
becomes complete with failure of the accused to account satisfactorily or explain
such assets in satisfactory manner. Therefore, it can very well be held that the
Contd…
37 Special (Vig.) (T) Case No.2/2010.
accused had amassed assets disproportionate to his ‘known source of income’.
51. In view of the above, at the most, sum of Rs.2.89 crores
remained found in his bank account bearing A/C No.4660, which has not been
satisfactorily accounted for by the accused. As such, the accused, Dr. Ngangin
Lego @ N.N. Osik is held guilty of criminal misconduct under section- 13(2) RW
Sec.13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.. Hence, he is convicted under
the aforesaid sections of Law.
52. The bailbond of the accused stands cancelled.
S E N T E N C E
53. Coming to the question of sentence, the accused as well
as the leaned Special Public Prosecutor have been heard. The accused has
nothing specific to say but he simply prayed that he may be allowed to go on
bail.
54. It is seen that corruption can occur on various level, which
affects the Government in large scale and corruption is very much prevalent
which is a part of the everyday structure of the society. In the present case, the
accused being an officer of Arunachal Pradesh acted in his official capacity for
personal gain and amassed huge amount of money to the tune of crores in his
personal bank account bearing A/C No.4660. That being so, this court is of the
view that ends of justice would meet if the accused is sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of at least Rupees Two Crores
keeping in view the fact that he had amassed ill gotten money to the tune of
crores. Accordingly, accused, Dr. Ngangin Lego is sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 5 (Five) years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees
Two Crores) only, in default, to undergo RI for a period of 1 (One) year for
commission of the offence under Section 13(2) read with Sec.13(1)(e) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act.
55. Let a free copy of the Judgment be furnished to the
accused forthwith.
Contd…
38 Special (Vig.) (T) Case No.2/2010.
56. Furnish a copy of the findings and sentence of this
judgment to the concerned District Magistrate, under the provision of Section
365 CrPC.
Judgment is pronounced and delivered in open court under
seal of this Court with my signature on this 15th day of June, 2016.
( I. Ali ) Special Judge, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur. Dictated & corrected by me -
( I. Ali ) Special Judge, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur. Transcribed & typed by- Sri Satyabrata Kshattry, Stenographer. PROSECUTION WITNESSES : PW.1 - Sri Tanyuk Kopak. PW.2 - Sri Takam Tadu. PW.3 - Sri Jarkar Gamlin. PW.4 - Sri Pradip Kumar Borah. PW.5 - Sri Ramesh Babu. PW.6 - Sri Takam Pario. PW.7 - Sri Marsel Lego. PW.8 - Sri Nikh Tapa. PW.9 - Sri Gammi Ete. PW.10 - Sri Bidi Lego. PW.11 - Smti Roitong Singpho. PW.12 - Sri Mijin Tayeng. PW.13 - Md. Sohrab Ali Hazarika. PW.14 - Sri Ananda Sharma. PW.15 - Sri Gokia Ajay. PW.16 - Sri Kishan Raj Chetry. PW.17 -Sri Chandra Bahadur Chetry. PW.18 - Sri Mari Riba. PW.19 - Sri Krishna Singh Bisht. PW.19 - Sri Deba Prasad Dutta. PW.20 - Sri Subhash Chandra Yadav. PW.21 -Sri Mohan Kaye.
Contd…
39 Special (Vig.) (T) Case No.2/2010.
DEFENCE WITNESSES : DW.1 – Dr. Ngangin Lego @ N.N. Osik (Accused). DW.2 - Smti Punang Osik @ Poonam Osik. List of Exhibits : Ext.1 - Gift Deed. Ext.2 - F.I.R. Ext.3 - Registering note. Ext.4 to Ext.10, Ext.12, 13, 14, 16 : Seizure Lists. Ext.11 – Deed of declaration. Ext.17 and 18 – Statements. Ext.19 and 22– Specimen signature of the accused. Ext.20 – SB A/c opening form. Ext.21 – Letter addressed to Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Itanagar. Ext.23 – Forwarding of Prosecution sanction. Ext.24 – Letter issued by Secy. (Personal), Govt. of A.P. Ext.25 – Charge sheet. Ext.26 – Written Order. Ext.27 – Order of Prosecution sanction. Ext.28 – Final Form. Ext.29 – Charge sheet. Ext.A – Declaration. Ext.B to G – Money Receipts. Ext.H and I – Documents of the accused. ( I. Ali ) Special Judge, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur.