SUDHIN CHANDRA BARUA Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 18th July, 2007 of the learned Special Judge, Assam in Special Case No. 2(A)/1990, State of Assam v/s. Mr. Sudhin Ch. Barua. By the said judgment, while convicting the appellant under Sec. 13(1)(e) read with Sec. 13(2)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, "1988 Act"), he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 2(two) years with fine of Rs. 5,000/ - (Rupees five thousand) and in default, further rigorous imprisonment for 2(two) months. The case against the accused/appellant was initiated on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by the PW 21; who, at that point of time, was the Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti -Corruption, Assam, Guwahati. In the F.I.R., it was alleged that while conducting the Enquiry No. RE 40(6)/88, it was gathered that the accused/appellant, an IAS Officer working in the capacity of Labour Commissioner, Assam, Guwahati had acquired positive assets in his name comprising of land, building and movable properties together with bank deposits etc. and also positive assets in the name of his son Dipankar Barua in the form of oil tanker bearing registration No. AMK -5318 while he was a college student in the year 1981 and also positive assets in the name of his wife Chitra Barua in the form of land and building alongwith negative assets already spent by him. It was alleged in the F.I.R. that grand total of all natures of assets stood at Rs. 16,15,562/ - and against those assets accused put account for Rs. 8,20,409/ - and regarding the balance of Rs. 7,95,152/ -, the accused could not satisfactorily account for it.

(2.) On the basis of the F.I.R., the then Officer -in -Charge of ACB Police Station registered ACB Police Station Case No. 24/1989 under Sec. 13(1)(e) read with Sec. 13(2) of the 1988 Act. On completion of the investigation, charge under the aforesaid provisions had been framed against the accused/appellant, which is as follows: - -

(3.) The charge having been read over and explained to the accused/appellant, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, trial commenced during which the prosecution examined 21 (twenty -one) witnesses. Defence also examined 3(three) witnesses including the accused/appellant and his son, Dipankar Barua. He also examined his Chartered Accountant as DW 2.