CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Vs. DINESH KUMAR BANGAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Central Bureau of Investigation has assailed the order dtd. 24/3/2003 passed by Special Judge, CBI Cases, Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 28/2002 whereby respondents Dinesh Kumar Bangard and Smt. Santosh Bangard were discharged from the offences punishable under Sec. 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Ss. 168, 201 and 109/120B IPC.

(2.) Learned Special Public Prosecutor argued that on the basis of FIR the case was instituted against the respondents for amassing disproportionate assets worth Rs.18,88,039.00. He further argued that after thorough investigation agency concluded that during the check period from 29/5/1990 till 22/1/1999 respondent No. 1 Dinesh Kumar Bangard worked as Assistant Commissioner, Foreign Post Office, G.P.O., Jaipur, Audit Air Cargo Customs, Sanganer, Jaipur, Inland Container Depot Customs, Sanganer, Jaipur and Customs Commissioner, Bombay and misused his post and amassed disproportionate assets worth Rs.18,88,039.00. The learned Trial Court vide impugned order dtd. 24/3/2003 admitted the statement given by accused-respondent No. 1 on the basis of chart. He further argued that the chart considered by the Court does not find any mentioning neither in the COURT's order-sheets nor in the charge-sheet submitted in the Court, therefore, the learned Trial Court has committed grave error in discharging the respondent No. 1 from the offences punishable under Sec. 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Ss. 168, 201 and 109/120B IPC. Similarly accused-respondent No. 2 Smt. Santosh Bangard who is wife of accused-respondent No. 1 Dinesh Kumar Bangard has also been discharged under Sec. 109/120B IPC. He further argued that accused-respondent No. 2 Smt. Santosh Bangard was prosecuted as an abattor and therefore, no sanction for prosecution was required. Learned Special Public Prosecutor put his reliance upon the judgment passed in P. Nallammal Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, 1999 CrLJ 3967, decided on 9/8/1999.

(3.) On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused- respondents justified the discharge order passed by the learned Trial Court.