ANUP KUMAR SINHA Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Anup Kumar Sinha
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Click here to view full judgement.
HITESH KUMAR SARMA -
(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 4.7.2007 passed by the Special Judge CBI, Assam by which the appellant stands convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 6 (months) for the offence under Section 7 and rigorous imprisonment for 1 year for the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the PC Act). Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. The facts of the case may be briefly stated as follows:
(2.) On 24.3.2003, one Keshab Sarma lodged a complaint with SP, CBI, alleging that appellant Anup Kr Singha, Sr Accountant, Pension-IV Section, O/o Accountant General (A and E) demanded an amount of Rs 1000/- to clear the pensions papers of one Sujendra Lal retired Grade-IV employee, PWD Road Division, Majuli. According to the complainant Sujendra Lal had requested him to take steps to clear the pension paper. On receipt of the complaint, a verification was done by Inspector N.G. Khamrang and since the allegations was found true, a case vide RC No. 6(A)/2003-GWH u/s 13 (1)(d) read with Section 7 and 13(2) of the PC Act was registered. Thereafter, a trap was laid, and Manoj Banerjee, Inspector, was directed to make arrangements for the trap. Accordingly an amount of Rs 1000/- treated with phenolphthalein was handed over to the complainant. The trap team of CBI along with the complainant reached the AG office. The complainant met the appellant in the AG office and when the appellant demanded the money the complainant took out the tainted money and handed it over to the appellant who received it and kept it in his left side shirt pocket. The moment appellant took the money the complainant gave the signal. The trap team and the independent witnesses rushed to the appellant. Thereafter, a sodium carbonate solution was prepared, and on being required, the appellant dipped his right hand on the solution which turned pink. Thereafter, necessary seizure and other formalities were made. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was laid against the appellant for the offences u/s 7 and 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act.
(3.) In due course, charges u/s 7 and 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act were framed against the appellant who pleaded not guilty to the charges. Prosecution examined 12 witnesses to substantiate the charges. At the closure of prosecution evidence, all the incriminating materials were put to the appellant who denied the allegations. The defence examined two witnesses.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.