1 Special (Vig.) (T) Case No.2/2010.lakhimpurjudiciary.gov.in/judgment...

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…


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


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…


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…


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…


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…


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…


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…


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…


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…


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…


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…


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…


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…


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…


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…


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…


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…


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…


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…


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…


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…


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…


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…


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…


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…


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…


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…


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…


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…


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…


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…


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…


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…


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…


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…


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…


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…


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.

1 Special (Vig.) (T) Case No.2/2010.lakhimpurjudiciary.gov.in/judgment...

Documents

Transcript of 1 Special (Vig.) (T) Case No.2/2010.lakhimpurjudiciary.gov.in/judgment...