NAR BAHADUR BHANDARI Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26- 05-2007 passed by the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, East & North Sikkim at Gangtok in S.T. (P.C. Act) Case No.1/2004 convicting the appellant under section 51(1)(e) of the Prevention and Corruption Act, 1947 and order dated 08-05-2007 sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for one month and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo further simple imprisonment of one week.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case is that, R.C. Case No.5/84- CIU(A)2615/84 was registered against the appellant, Nar Bahadur Bhandari, former Chief Minister of Sikkim, on the allegation that while holding the office of the Chief Minister of Sikkim from October, 1979 to May, 1984, he misused his official position as public servant and acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income in his own name and in the name of his dependant or benami which include a multi-storeyed building at Gangtok worth Rs.30,00,000/-and other properties at Gangtok valued at rupees fifty thousand.

(3.) IN the later part of his term, he was removed from the post of Chief Minister on 11th May, 1984, the date considered as the end of the "check period". It is alleged that the appellant owned and possessed a small house known as "Primula Cottage" before the "check period" valuing not more than Rs.39,175.00 and house hold assets worth Rs.63,741.00. He further had Bank balance of Rs.1,634.70 in the name of his wife, Smt. Dil Kumari Bhandari. The father of the accused/appellant was an agriculturist and did not inherit any property from him except a dry land measuring 0.75 acre which he sold at Rs.10,000/-. Finding it difficult to live in a rented accommodation at Gangtok, he petitioned to the then Maharaja of Sikkim for a house site which was granted to him and, upon it he built the aforesaid small house known as "Primula Cottage" valued at Rs.39,175.00, in which he lived with his wife and children. During 1981-83, a period falling within the "check period", a five storeyed R.C.C. structure was constructed by him over the land, the value of which exceeded his total income earned by him during the entire "check period". As per the prosecution, incomes of the appellant earned by him during the "check period" were as follows:-