RANENDRA MOHAN SHOME Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Thase two Criminal Revisions have been filed toy Sri Ranendra Mohan Shome - petitioner of Criminal Revision No.497/98 and by Sri Birendra Nath Sarma-petitioner of Criminal Revision No. 484/98. Though arguments in both the cases have been advanced separately but for the reason of similarity both in the matter of fact and the points involved in the cases I proceed to dispose of both by a common judgment. Copy of judgment shall be kept in both the files and this judgment will govern both the cases.

(2.) Petitioner Sri Ranendra Mohan Shome herein after referred to as accused A3 and petitioner Sri Birendra Nath Sarma hereinafter referred to as accused No. A5 were posted as Director and Senior Finance and Accounts Officer in the department of Animal Husbandry & Vety. in the Govt. of Assam at the time of the occurrence. Financial irregularity known as LOCs scam was detected and was referred to the Central Bureau of Investigation for investigation criminal case was registered against number of accused persons including A3 and A5 under Section 1208,420,417,471.477A, 201 of the WC read with Sections 13(1), 13(2)and 13(i) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Accused A3 has been charge sheeted by the! Special Judge, Guwahati, Assam by means; of the impugned order dated 31.10.98 to stand trial under Section 120B and 420 IPC and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 wherein accused A5 has been directed to stand trial on charges framed against him for commission of offence punishable under Section 12B, 420 IPC read with Section 13(2) and 13(i) (d) of Prevention 6f Corruption Act, 1988. Said accused persons have now approached this Court by means of above two Criminal Revision applications filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the order of the Special Judge on the ground that they are being subjected to unnecessary harassment by means of impugned order as there is no sufficient plausible material justifying their trial on the charges which have been levelled against them and the charges framed against them fby the Special Judge. Therefore the charges are liable to be quashed. It is contended on their behalf that there is no likelyhood of their conviction on the charges for the absence of credible evidence on record.

(3.) The prosecution case in brief is that the accused (Ai) Deputy Secretary, Veterinary Department, Govt. of Assam dishonestly issued 14 LOCs amounting to Rs.89,95,430/ - without any fund provisions and budget sanction of the Finance Department which were used by the accused for passing the RCC bills. All the accused in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy forged one LOG dtd 28.11.91 by inflating its amount from Rs.9000/ - to Rs.3009,000/-. It is alleged thai: A(14) inflated the amount by adding 300/- before Rs.9,000/- on his typewriter which was later on destroyed by him. 5 LOCs amounting to Rs. 1,16,61,200/- for the months of August, 1992 and September 1992 were also forged by the accused by forging the signatures of the concerned officers and used them as genuine. Against those forged and falsa LOCs an amount of Rs. 1,20,20,897.60 was fraudulently withdrawn.