CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Vs. PRATAP MAKHIJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant assails the Judgment of the Learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, East District, at Gangtok, dated 30-08-2016, in S.T. (CBI) Case No.01 of 2013, by which,

(2.) The Special Public Prosecutor Mr. Kali Charan Mishra for the Appellant/Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) advancing his arguments for the Appellant briefly put forth the facts leading to registration of the case against the Respondents on 25-10-2006. That, on completion of investigation Charge-Sheet was submitted against A1 to A5 and one Dr. Khagendra Neopaney under Sections 120B, 420, 468, 471 of the IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel Mr. K. T. Bhutia placing his arguments for A1 contended that the Prosecution has failed to prove any mens rea and actus reus on the part of A1 for the offences he was charged with. That, a simple case of recruitment was blown out of proportion on a misunderstanding of facts. That, A1 as the Head of the RRI (Ay) at the relevant time admittedly was a novice in administrative matters, duly established by the evidence of the Prosecution witnesses themselves. On a requisition by the Central Office, A1 sent the roster indicating the vacancies on the basis of percentage and then proceeded on leave. The next In-Charge sent the vacancies category-wise. Till then, the roster system had not been maintained by the RRI (Ay) as indicated in the evidence of P.W.2 (Lakshmi Kanta Ganguli), P.W.5 (Dr. Ashok Kumar Panda) and P.W.7 (Gopi Prasad). Following instructions received from the Central Authority to fill up the posts for specified categories A1 published the advertisement and on further instructions he sought the names of eligible candidates from the Employment Cell of the Government of Sikkim. The time for interview was extended to enable the local candidates to appear thereof. Pursuant thereto the Selection Committee was constituted by the Central Authority comprising of A1, P.W.3 and P.W.4. This Committee suo moto decided to give extra marks to the local candidates as deposed by P.W.2, contingent upon production of Certificate of Identification/Sikkim Subject.