DHIRAJ BURMAN Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein was working as Lower Division Assistant in the Office of the District Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati at the relevant time. In the year 2004 few posts of junior Administrative Assistants were notified to be filled up. The written test for the said vacant posts was held in the month of July and the oral interview was held on 11.09.2004. Thereafter the Gauhati High Court Registry came to know that a few candidates were being approached by someone to engage him as a middle man to get the job. Accordingly, an administrative enquiry was held and thereafter a formal FIR was registered; on the basis of a judicial order passed in W.P. (C) 87 of 2005 on 10.1.2005, by the CBI being Case No. RC 2(A)/2005 -GWH under Sections 120 -B/511 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corrupt Act, 1988. After the investigation, charge -sheet under Section 120B, IPC and Sections 7 and 15 of the PC act were filed against the appellant Dhiraj Barman and one Bhusan Kalita on 24.3.2006. The co -accused Bhusan Kalita subsequently became an approver and examined as PW 25. After the trial, the appellant herein has been convicted under Section 120B, IPC and Sections 7 and 15 of the PC Act and varied sentences have been awarded, maximum being R1 for two years with fine vide impugned judgment dated 29.9.2009 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Assam, Guwahati in Special Case No. 14 of 2005. Being aggrieved with his conviction and sentences the sole accused has preferred this appeal. I have heard oral arguments of Sri K. Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellant and that of Sri P.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Standing counsel for the C.B.I. Sri Agarwal has also furnished comprehensive written argument and during the course of hearing the learned counsel also took me to the oral evidence of the witnesses in detail

(2.) ON the basis of the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer the following charges were framed against the appellant before the commencement of the trial.

(3.) ALTOGETHER 26 witnesses were examined by the prosecution to establish the aforesaid charges. The witnesses include as many as five candidates, seeking job in the High Court, viz.; PWs 8, 12, 14, 15 and 16. The defence case was of total denial and no counter story was projected as to why he might have been falsely framed in the case and as to why the approver also implicated him in the aforesaid offence. On the basis of the prosecution evidence the appellant was accordingly convicted.