NALIN CHANDRA BURAGOHAIN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Munir, learned Addl. P.P., Assam, for the opposite party. This is an application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 29.4.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge, Assam at Guwahati, in Special Case No. 3(A)/2001 whereby the charge under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 have been framed against the petitioner.

(2.) The prosecution case, in short, is that an enquiry being RE No. 26(5)/88, was conducted by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Organisation (hereinafter called as VACO, in short) against the accused petitioner and in the enquiry, it was found that he acquired huge assets (movable/immovable) which are prima-facie, disproportionate to his known and legal sources of income. Accordingly, the ACB P.S. case No. 3/1992 under Section 13(1)(e)/13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988 was registered, at the instance of the Government of Assam and the case was investigated into.

(3.) During investigation, the petitioner's house was searched and many documents relating to LIC/UTI, Bank account etc. and also many household properties, including hard cash of Rs. 37,684/- were seized. Some of the documents stand in petitioner's name and some of them in the name of his wife, two sons and cousins (brothers), who could not satisfactorily account for the same. Having found prima-facie case, the I.O. laid charge sheet No. 2/99 dated 30.3.1999 against the petitioner for acquiring huge assets worth approximately Rs. 26,81,713.77 in the name of his wife, Smt. Punya Buragohain, his two sons, namely, Sri Chandra Shekhar Buragohain and Sri Rajshekhar Buragohain and his two cousins, namely, Sri Pulin Buragohain and Dilip Buragohain, during his service period from 1960 to 31.5.1992. The petitioner could not account for the said assets and as such he was sent up for trial. In the meantime, prosecution sanction was obtained from the Government and the learned Special Court, on consideration of materials found on record and upon hearing the parties framed the above charges against the petitioner vide impugned order dated 29.4.2005.