NAND KISHORE RAI Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing two appeals against the same judgment and order of conviction and sentence, appellants Nand Kishore Rai and Smt. Bandana Rai have assailed the judgment passed by the court below in Special Case no. 12 of 2013. Both the appeals were heard analogously and are being disposed of by the following composite judgment.

(2.) In Special Case No.12 of 2015 arising out of RC Case No.3A of 2013 both the appellants were found guilty to the charge under Sec. 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Sec. 109 of the IPC and appellant Nand Kishore Rai was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for six years and with fine and default clause. Appellant Smt. Bandana Rai is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for two years for committing offence under Sec. 109 of the IPC with fine and default clause.

(3.) Undisputedly, appellant Nand Kishore Rai was a superintendent of Customs (preventive), Nepal and Bhutan unit. He was posted at Customs House, Kolkata. It is the allegation of CBI that the said Nand Kishore Rai amassed assets disproportionate to his known source of income. The defacto complainant gathered information that a case being RC- 01(A)/2013/AC-III CBI/New Delhi was registered against the said Nand Kishore Rai, Superintendent of Customs under various penal provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter described as the said Act for short) and searches were conducted on 9/1/2013 at various places in the states of West Bengal, Punjab, Delhi, Mumbai etc. During investigation in the aforesaid case it was disclosed that the appellant acquired assets worth Rs.67,55,776.00 during the period between 31/3/2005 and 9/1/2013. It is also ascertained that appellant and his wife Smt. Bandana Rai accumulated assets in the form of huge bank balances, mutual funds and fixed deposits. They are also in possession of a car, costly jewellery items and modern electronic gadgets. During search huge amount of cash money amounting to Rs.36,42,000.00 was recovered from different locations of their master bedroom in Kolkata and they could not give any satisfactory reply. However, Smt. Bandana Rai pleaded that out of the said amount of money, some part of the cash was earned by him from sale of paintings. In the complaint it was also stated that the appellant accumulated a sum of Rs.67,27,191.00 approximately during the period between 31/3/2005 to 9/1/2013, while his income from salary was Rs.30,37,334.00, agricultural income was Rs.2,98,600.00. He had incurred expenditure of Rs.57,35,777.00 towards his household expenses, payment of LIC premium/medi claim policy, repayment of loan, education of children and other expenses. The value of assets of the appellant is Rs.82,27,232.00 at the end of the check period, i.e., 9/1/2013. He had also assets worth Rs.14,71,456.00 at the beginning of the check period, i.e., on 31/3/2005. Thus, he accumulated assets worth Rs.67,55,776.00 and also incurred expenditure of Rs.57,35,777.00 which is disproportionate to his known source of income.