ATUL CH.. KALITA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24.5.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge, Assam in Special Case No. 9(A) of 2002. By this impugned judgment the learned Special Judge has convicted the appellant under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2.) HEARD Mr. D. Talukdar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. BJ Dutta, learned Addl. PP, Assam. Also gone through the evidence tendered in the trial court by the prosecution as well as by the accused.

(3.) MR . Talukdar, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that while convicting the appellant under the aforesaid provisions of law, the learned Special Judge ignored the depositions of a large number of prosecution witnesses, who deposed in favour of the accused. Similarly, the trial court also discarded the defence evidence superficially and on flimsy ground. According to the learned counsel, the wife of the accused/appellant had additional earning by way of getting rent from different shopkeepers. However, the income of the wife has not been taken into consideration by the trial court solely on the ground that the shops were constructed on Government khas land. The learned counsel also submitted that at some point of time the wife of the accused had also purchased a truck by taking loan of Rs. 80,000/- from a financial institution, which could be gathered from the deposition of PW 14. The learned counsel also submitted that PW 22 has also admitted that in the salary statement the department did not include the arrear D.A. Referring to the depositions of PW 19 and 24 the learned counsel submitted that the accused had also sold a plot of land in the year 1996 at an amount of Rs. 1,30,000/- According to the learned counsel, if all these incomes are added then the difference of assets would stand satisfactorily explained.