SARADA PRASAD, IPC(RETD.) Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition challenge is made against the order dated 9.5.2013 passed in special case 5/2009 wherein by invoking the provision under section 319 of the CrPC, 1973 cognizance is taken against the petitioner under section 120(B)/217/218 of the Penal Code by the learned Special Judge, Assam.

(2.) An inquiry was carried out by the Deputy Superintendent of Police(Vigilance and Anti-corruption), Assam against one officer Panna Kanti Roy, then Commandant, Homeguard and Civil Defence, Assam vide R.E. no. 30(M)/2000. During inquiry it came to light that said Panna Kanti Roy has acquired his disproportionate assets worth more than Rs. 50 lakh found during computation of his income and expenditure during 1996-2000 during his service tenure in the said capacity. Pursuant to the said inquiry an FIR was lodged with the ACB PS which is registered ACB PS case 1/2004 under section 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(3.) The investigation of the said case was conducted and sanction for prosecution was also obtained on 29.5.2007. At this stage the petitioner has taken over the charge as Additional DGP of the Vigilance and Anti-corruption Wing and noticing certain basic defects in the investigation carried out by the I.O. such as IO has failed to examine the suspected officer to explain the disproportionate income nor has collected any tangible evidence, petitioner noted certain observations and endorsed to another Inspector for further investigation. Accordingly after further investigation finding no substantial evidence against the suspected officer, approval was sought from the government for filing final report and also addressed the government to examine the matter by the Legal Remembrancer and in the meantime he remitted the charge of Additional DGP of the Vigilance and Anti-corruption Wing and took the charge of DG, Civil Defence, Home Guard on 10.8.2009. Subsequently charge sheet in the ACB PS case 1/2004 was filed which was tried as special case 5/2009.