STATE (CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION) Vs. SONAM WANGDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved with the Judgment of acquittal dated 29.12.2012 passed in S.T. (CBI) Case No. 01 of 2005 by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, South & West Sikkim, at Namchi, the State (CBI) has filed this Appeal. By the impugned Judgment, the Respondent has been acquitted of the charges framed under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the P.C. Act, 1988).

(2.) THE Respondent was working as a public servant in State of Sikkim. He was on various posts including the post of Chief Secretary during the year 1976 to 1999. Two Public Interest Litigations [W.P.(C) No. 1/2000 and W.P.(C) No. 58 of 1999] were filed against him making various allegations of corruption and acquisition of assets to the tune of lakhs of rupees. These writ petitions were disposed of vide order dated 27.09.2000 and it was directed that these allegations in both the writ petitions be investigated by CBI, New Delhi and it be carried out by an officer not lower in rank then the Superintendent of Police. In consequent of the above direction, the CBI registered FIR No. RC.5(A)/2000 -ACU(VI) dated 07.12.2000 (Exbt. -137) against the Respondent under the aforesaid Sections of the P.C. Act, 1988 and Mr. M.P. Singh, Superintendent of Police (P.W. -62), was assigned with the duty of investigation. The check period for calculation of income, expenditure and assets was taken from 01.09.1976 to 30.09.1994. The investigation revealed that the Respondent, while working as a public servant, acquired disproportionate assets either on his own name or in the name of his family members to the tune of Rs. 21,30,138.79. The broad outcome of the investigation, in tabular form, is as follows:

(3.) ON trial, the CBI examined 62 prosecution witnesses and exhibited 308 documents. The Respondent also examined two defence witnesses and exhibited 4 documents. The learned Special Judge, after due consideration of the evidence, recorded the following findings vide paragraph 152 of the impugned judgment: -