1

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE, CBI, ASSAM,ADDL.

CBI COURT NO.II, CHANDMARI,GUWAHATI-3.

Special Case No. 16/2009.

State (CBI)

Vs

(1) Sri Diganta Chakraborty

AND

(2) Biju Kalita...……………….Accused

U/Secs 120B, 409/120B, 420/120B,

467/120B, IPC and 471/120B, IPC

AND

U/Secs 13(1) (c) and (d) read with secs 13(2)

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

P R E S E N T

Sri P.C. Das (AJS),

Special Judge CBI, Assam,

Addl. CBI Court No. II,

Chandmari, Guwahati- 3.

APPEARANCE:

Mr. S.D. Purokayastha and

Mr. S.K. Singh……………………………………………… Learned P.Ps for the Prosecution

2

Mr. L. Talukdar,

Manisha Das and

Mr. Bikash Das……………………………………………. Learned Advocates for accused Diganta

Chakraborty

Mr. P. Kalita ………………………………………………. Learned Advocate for accused Biju Kalita

Evidence recorded on : 20.4.2013, 22.4.2013, 15.5.2013, 16.5.2013,

11.6.2013, 15.7.2013, 06.7.2013, 07.8.2013,

08.8.2013, 09.9.2013, 10.9.2013, 11.9.2013,

05.10.2013, 07.10.2013, 07.01.2014,

27.1.2014, 28.1.2014, 25.2.2014, 21.3.2014,

28.3.2014, 31.5.2014, 26.6.2014, 29.8.2014,

30.8.2014.

Statements u/s 313 Cr PC

Recorded on : 07.2.2015 & 25.5.2015.

Arguments heard on : 16.6.2015, 10.7.2015, 23.7.2015, 19.8.2015,

30.11.2015, 17.12.2015, 02.1.2016, 04.4.2016,

07.4.2016, 08.4.2016, 12.4.2016, 16.4.2016,

22.04.2016, 28.04.2016, 02.05.2016, 06.05.2016,

18.05.2016, 19.05.2016.

Date fixed for judgment : 30.05.2016

Judgment delivered on : 30.05.2016

JUDGEMENT AND ORDER

“Truth must triumph” - is the hallmark of justice.

[Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik Vs Late Nandalal Badwaik and another

(2014) 2 SCC 576 Para 19]

In such a voyage of quest for truth, as in every criminal trial

including the present case in hand, we may proceed to anatomize and

oversee to what extent the truth so intrinsically involved in this case, is

discovered and established, in the process of rendering criminal justice.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3

1. This Prosecution was launched on the basis of the FIR (Certified true Copy)

dated 13.06.07, (Ext. 79) lodged by G. Verma, the then Superintendent of Police,

CBI, ACB, Guwahati, alleging inter-alia that credible informations were received that

Sri Diganta Chakraborty, the then Manager of the UCO Bank, Tezpur branch, entered

into Criminal Conspiracy with the Fifteen Nos. Persons/Firms, as named in the FIR,

and that in furtherance of such Criminal Conspiracy, he fraudulently sanctioned loans

amounting to Rs.399.52 Lakhs in favour of them, during the period of 14.06.2000 to

19.04.2005, in utter disregard to the norms laid down for the purpose, without

executing proper loan documents etc., resultantly causing huge loss to the UCO Bank.

2. On receipt of the said FIR, a regular case being RC Case No. 12(A)/2007,

Guwahati was registered and upon completion on investigation, submitted Charge

Sheet against 3 (three) accused namely- (1) Sri Diganta Chakraborty (2) Ratish

Choudhury, who were the then concerned officers of the UCO Bank, Tezpur Branch and

(3) Sri Biju Kalita, Chandmari, Tezpur, Assam.

3. Considering the materials on record, more particularly as disclosed in the Charge

Sheet as well as in the CD and also hearing the learned counsels of the both sides, my

learned Predecessor framed charges against accused- (1) Diganta Chakraborty and

(2) Ratish Choudhury for offences u/secs. 120B, 409/120B, 420/120B,

467/120B, 471/120B IPC and u/secs 13(1)(c) and (d) read with sec 13(2) of

the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, and also framed charges against the other

accused (3) Biju Kalita for offences u/secs 120B, 420/120B, 467/120B, 471/120B

and u/sec 120 B read with Secs 13(1)(c)and (d) read with sec.13(2) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which on being read over and explained to the

persons, they pleaded not guilty and that they claimed to be tried.

It is pertinent to mention here that, Ratish Choudhury having died, in

the meantime, the case against him stood abated vide order dated

18.02.2016.

Thus, this Criminal case proceeded against the remaining two

accused namely – (1) Diganta Chakraborty and (2) Biju Kalita.

In this case, prosecution has examined as many as Twenty One

Witnesses, including the I.Os- Madhu Sudan Singhal (P.W. 19), Rohit Kapoor

4

(P.W.21) and Bhakti Pada Mishra (P.W.-20), the then Asstt. Director–cum- Scientist

“C” (Documents).

4. After closure of recording evidence of the Prosecution witnesses, the

accused were examined with references to the evidence on record and their statements

u/s 313 Cr.P.C were recorded.

The accused Diganta Chakraborty had admittedly stated in his

statement so recorded that he was discharging his duties as the Manager of the UCO

Bank, Tezpur Branch, since June 1999 till 20.06.2005, that he had sanctioned the

loan in question, in favour of B.K. Enterprise, as per existing Rules, that he had issued

the demand drafts debiting the loan Accounts of B. K. Enterprise and that he was

implicated falsely in connection with this case.

On the other hand, denying the charge of entering into Criminal

Conspiracy with other accused and that of causing wrongful loss to the extent of Rs.50

Lakhs plus commission to the UCO Bank, Tezpur Branch; the other accused Biju Kalita

had stated in his statement so recorded u/s 313 Cr. P.C that he had obtained a term

loan from the said bank. He had also further pleaded innocence and that of false

implication in this case.

Both the accused have examined no witnesses in their defence.

5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsels of both sides.

I have also perused the written reply submitted on behalf of the Prosecution, brief

written points of arguments, as submitted on behalf of accused Diganta Chakraborty and

the written arguments, as submitted on behalf of the other accused, Biju Kalita.

DISCUSSIONS, DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:

6. At the cost of repetition, it is pertinent to add hear that in order to bring

home the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution has examined as many as

21(Twenty One) Witnesses, whereas none is examined in their defence by the

accused persons. As already recorded, the pleas of the accused persons, as recorded in

their statement u/s 313 Cr. PC. are that of false implication and that they are innocent.

That the accused Diganta Chakraborty was the then Branch Manager of UCO

Bank, Tezpur Branch, from June, 1999 to 20.06.2005, is also an admitted position

in this case.

5

7. In the premises, the points for determination in this case are –

(1) That the accused Diganta Chakraborty being admittedly and evidently the

then Branch Manager of the U.CO. Bank, Tezpur Branch, at the relevant time of

occurrence, whether the loan account being No. L-3/140 was granted in favour

of M/S. B.K. Enterprise, of which Biju Kalita was the sole proprietor, following

the existing Rules of the U.CO. Banks, more particularly, following the mandates

of the Manual of Instructions as contained in Vol.-VI parts A & B (Exts

1 & 2) ?

(2) Whether proper loan documents, as prescribed by the above referred Rules,

were executed in granting the above-referred loan in favour of M/S. B.K.

Enterprise?

(3) Whether the 8 (eight) nos of demand drafts involved in this case, under

Exts. 8-15, were issued properly, following proper procedure of the U.CO. Bank?

(4) Whether the accused Diganta Chakraborty, being admittedly the then Branch

Manager of the UCO the Bank, Tezpur Branch at the relevant time and thereby

being a public servant, in pursuance of Criminal Conspiracy with the other

accused Biju Kalita, the proprietor of the M/S. B.K. Enterprise, Tezpur,

committed the illegal acts of granting such loan in favour of M/S. B.K.

Enterprise without executing proper loan documents and thus dishonestly

debited the loan amount to the extent of Rs.90 lakhs arbitrarily by way of

Eight Demand Drafts, and thereby committed the Criminal breach of trust,

cheated the said bank in respect of Rs.90 lakhs, and that he also dishonestly

used/allowed to use those documents/ Demand Drafts, by abusing his

official power and position as such public servant, and thus whether both of them

are liable to be convicted under appropriate sections of law, as charged in

connection with this case?

8. APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE ON RECORD

(A) Whether the accused Diganta Chakraborty, the then Branch Manager of

the UCO Bank, Tezpur Branch, granted loans in favour of M/S. B.K.

Enterprise, Tezpur, following the existing Rules of the U.CO. Bank?

This covers the points for determination No. 2 and 3 also, as indicated

above.

6

(i) (a) The crux of the Prosecution case is that the accused Diganta

Chakraborty being admittedly and evidently the then branch Manager of

the UCO Bank, Tezpur Branch, at the relevant time of occurrence, granted

the loan amounting to Rs. 90 Lakhs under Account No. L-3/140 in favour

of M/S. B.K. Enterprise, Tezpur, without executing the loan

documents, violating the prescribed and the existing Rules of the bank;

more particularly, without following the mandates of the Manual of

instructions, as contained in Vol-VI Part A and B (Exts 1 & 2).

As recorded earlier, the accused Diganta Chakraborty was

admittedly and evidently the Branch Manager of the UCO Bank,

Tezpur Branch at the relevant time of occurrence.

The notable consequence that has emerged from such admission,

as fairly recorded at page-3 of the brief written points of

Arguments on behalf of accused Diganta Chakraborty that he does not

deny his signatures, wherever those may appear in preparing the

documents in course of business of the bank, during his tenure of

rendering his services, as such Manager.

At this Juncture, we may have a brief resume to the relevant

evidence on record, as adduced by the Prosecution witnesses

(b) Both the senior officers of the U.CO. Bank – (1) Tapan Kr. Sarma

(PW 1), who was posted as the then Asst. Chief Officer at the Zonal

office Jorhat in the year 2008, while the U.CO. Bank, Tezpur branch

fell under the jurisdiction of the Jorhat Zone and (2) A. C. Slath (PW-17),

the then Zonal Manager of the U.CO. Bank, Zonal office, Jorhat, during

the period of 16.12.2006 to 06.05.2009, as examined by the Prosecution;

have narrated in their evidence that the procedure regarding advance

and remittance of UCO Bank are incorporated in the Manual of

instructions Vol-VI, Part-A (Ext-1), and VOL-VI, Part-B containing

Chapters 11 to 19 (Ext-2). Chapter 13 of Ext- 2, as narrated by PW-1

in his evidence, deals with advances against Term Deposits at pages

655-676; that Para-1, gives instructions against advances of term

deposit. Referring to Para 1.1.9, both the PWs have added in their

evidence that it lays down that the particulars of the documents

relating to the advance against time deposit receipts, should be

entered in the security ledger and that it should be cheeked and

initialed by an authorized officer; that the particulars of security should

7

also be entered in the appropriate column in the loan ledger and in case

of overdraft/ cash credit in the current account, ledger as well as drawing

power register should be checked and initialed by an authorized officer.

(c) Both the PWs have also narrated about the procedure of

remittance. According to PW 1, the procedure of remittance is

incorporated in the manual of instructions Vol- 2. In the bank remittance,

according to PW 1, there is no physical transfer of the amount.

In bank remittance, according to both the PWs, 4 (four) parties

get involved in process and they are – (1) person who sends money/

purchaser of the draft (2) drawee branch i.e. the branch which receives

money from the customer (3) drawee branch, which pays the money and

(4) payee i.e. the person, who receives the money. Further, according

the both the PW 1 and PW 17, there were four different methods in bank

remittance, during the relevant period - Demand Drafts, Mail Transfer,

Telegraphic Transfer and Telephonic & Telex Transfer.

(d) Describing about the procedure for purchase/ issue of drafts, it is

also inter-alia narrated by both the PW-1 and PW-17 in their evidence that

a customer has to make a request in prescribed D.D. application form.

The customer must fill up all the columns and sign the application form.

Then the application form along with cash/cheque is to be presented in

the cash deptt. In the Cash Deptt., Head Cashier/ Cashier receives the

application form with cash/cheque and issues the receipts/counter foil to

the customer. Thereafter, the Cash Deptt. sends the application form to

the D.D. deptt./officer concerned. In the D.D Deptt., all the particulars of

the application form viz, name, address, signature of the

purchaser/customer are verified. It is pertinent to state here that when

D.D application form is received in the counter, a scroll is given on each

application. After verification in the D.D. Deptt. drafts are prepared. In

each draft the D.D. serial (Sl.) No. of the concerned payee/drawee branch

is mentioned to avoid any fraud. This D.D Sl.No. of the payee

branch/branches is maintained in the D.D. issue Register, whereby

separate folios are allotted for each payee branch.

If the amount of the draft, according to both the PWs, up to Rs.

10,000/-, it can be signed singly by an authorized officer, but in case the

8

amount involved is more than Rs.10,000/-, it must be signed by two

authorised officers along with their names and P.F. Nos.

By the way, PW-17 has also narrated in his evidence that he had

submitted the Manual of Instructions relating to Remittances & Advances

and othe documents through his letter dated 09.09.2008 (marked Y)

addressed to the S.P.CBI, ACB, Guwahati and that he had not seen the

documents in court, as mentioned at Sl. No. 2 to 9 in document marked Y.

During cross-examination, PW-17 has also testified that a bank

draft can be issued to the customer by debiting his Accounts including

Loan Account in the concerned branch and in that case, the debited

amount becomes his/her loan liability, recoverable by the bank in a legal

forum.

Further, according to PW-17, demand loans granted by the banks

against term deposits/ FDRs, the bank does not require another security,

if the loan is granted within the limit of 75% of FDR and that in that

event, the FDR is marked under bank lien.

It is also the specific evidence of PW 1, during cross-examination

that he was not shown the security ledger of the concerned loan by the

C.B.I authority to satisfy himself as to whether the entries were made

properly or not. Further, according to PW 1, he does not know as to what

illegalities were committed in the U.CO. Bank, Tezpur branch, during the

period of 2000-2006.

(e) Thus what transpires from the evidence of PW 1 and

PW 17 that the particulars of security should be entered in

appropriate column of the loan ledger, under para 1.1.9 of Ext-2,

as indicated above.

(ii) Similarly, in the evidence of Nabadip Saikia (P.W- 2), the then Special

Assistant Accounts in the UCO Bank, Tezpur Branch, during the period of

1983-2007, who was admittedly fully aware of the procedure relating to issuance of

Bank Draft, debiting and crediting bank accounts, maintenance of Ledger Folios etc. we

find that the Exts. 3-16(Loan debit vouchers, Demand Drafts etc) were prepared

in the Tezpur Branch of the U.CO. Bank in its ordinary and usual course of business by

various staffs and officers and therefore, he cannot say if there were any illegalities in

preparing or issuing the above-referred Exhibits. Further, according to PW 2, it

9

appears from the Loan Ledger Folio (Ext-7) that the Loan Account in question was

opened on 01.02.2005, with loan amount of Rs.10 Lakhs.

(iii) Shanti Ranjan Sarkar, (P.W-3) was the then Assistant Manager of UCO

Bank, Tezpur Branch during the years 2004-2005. According to him, the entry dated

01.02.2005 in the loan ledger folio (Ext-7)of M/s B.K. Enterprise, maintained at the

U.C.O Bank, Tezpur Branch shows the debit of loan amount of Rs.10 Lakhs, including

debit of Demand Drafts Commission of Rs.1375/-. It also bears the signature (Ext.7/1) of

the accused Diganta Chakraborty. As further added by PW-3 in his evidence that through

the debit voucher (Ext.6), Rs 60,10,300/- was debited from the Loan Account No.

3/140 of M/S B. K. Enterprise for issuance of Demand Drafts and that Ext-5 is the

D.D/Mail Transfer Voucher dated 01.03.2015 for Rs.20 Lakhs in favour of H.C. Enterprise.

PW-3 has further stated about the D.D./Mail Transfer Voucher dated 22.01.2015 for

Rs.20 Lakhs (Ext-16) in favour of Guwahati Tatshal Udoyg, payable at Guwahati; about

the Demand Drafts Exts. 8, 9 and 10 corresponding to Ext.16 dated 22.01.2015 for Rs.9

Lakhs, Rs.9 Lakhs and 2 Lakhs respectively in favour of Guwahti Tatshal Udoyg and that

of the Demand Drafts dated 01.03.2015 Exts 11,12 and 13 for Rs.9 Lakhs , Rs.9 Lakhs

and Rs.2 Lakhs, respectively in favour of M/S Daily Health Associate payable at

Guwahati. It is also specifically added by PW-3, that although the above referred Exhibits

bear hand writing and signatures of different bank employees including that of himself,

Smt. Dip Shikha Roy and that of accused Diganta Chakraborty, according to him, no

illegality, irregularity or conspiracy were committed by the bank employees, in doing so.

Thus it is clear that different D.Ds (Demand Drafts) were issued

on various dates on the basis of the Loan Account No. 3/140 of M/S B. K.

Enterprise, Tezpur.

(iv) (a) Motihur Rahman, PW-6, is another senior officer, the then Senior Manager

of the UCO bank, Tezpur Branch, posted during the year 2006-2007, as

examined by the prosecution.

He has deposed that Ext-3, is the loan debit voucher of the said

bank, dated 01.02.2005, for Rs. 10 Lakhs from the loan account of M/S.

B. K. Enterprise, Ext-4 is the D.D. /M.T. order of the UCO Bank dated

01.02.2005 for Rs.10 Lakhs requesting issuance of D.D. favouring

Guwahati Tatshal Udoyg, and that the applicant of the said D.D/M.T

order was Biju Kalita, the proprietor of M/S. B. K. Enterprise. Exts 14

and 15 are the corresponding D.Ds for Rs. 1 lakhs and Rs.9 lakhs

respectively in favour of Guwahati Tatshal Udoyg, payable at

10

Guwahati. He has also added in his evidence that Ext.-6 is the loan debit

voucher of the UCO Bank, Tezpur Branch, dated 02.03.2005, through

which a total amount of Rs.60,10,300/- was debited from the loan

account of M/S B. K. Enterprise, that Ext-5 is the D.D/M.T order

dated 01.03.2005 of the UCO Bank, Tezpur Branch for Rs. 20 Lakhs

requesting to issue D.Ds favouring M/S. H. C. Enterprise, payable at

Guwahati.

(b) According to the PW-6, the name of the applicant in the above

referred Ext-5, was written as ourselves i.e. the bank. It also transpires

from the evidence of PW-6, that Ext-16 is another DD/MT orders dated

22.01.2005 for Rs.20 Lakhs in favour of Guwahati Tatshal Udyog

payable at Guwahati, wherein also the name and address of the applicant

was written as ourselves.

Exts – 8, 9 and 10, as added by PW-6 in his evidence, are the

D.D dated 22.01.2005 for Rs. 9 Lakhs, 9 Lakhs, and 2 Lakhs

respectively, all issued in favour of Guwahati Tatshal Udoyg, payable

at Guwahati; that Exts-11, 12 and 13 are the D.Ds dated 01.03.2005

favouring Daily Health Associate for Rs. 9 lakhs, 9 lakhs and 2

lakhs respectively payable at Guwahati, corresponding to the D.D, Ext-5.

(c) During cross examination, this witness has narrated that all the

Exhibits 3 to 16 were the product of functioning at the Tezpur Branch in

UCO Bank in the usual and ordinary course of business, that the

signatures of the employees were put in due discharge of their official

duties, that apparently no anomaly, illegalities or irregularities can be

detected on the face of the those documents (exhibits).This witness has

also further added in his evidence that without seeing the loan documents

and sanction letters, he cannot say that the loan limit allowed to the party

concerned had been falsely recorded or executed in Ext-7 (Loan Ledger

Folio), although, according to him, while sanctioning a loan, every security

document guaranteeing the repayment of the loan, is to be entered in the

Security Register.

It is also found from the evidence of PW-6 that he is not having

any such document to show that the ledger folio (Ext-7) does not conform

to such security documents, sanction letter and other documents

11

According to him, security document register is common for all the

borrowers and that the individual loan files are kept in the custody of the

bank’s branch.

Further, according to PW-6, in Ext-7 (Loan Ledger Folio), the

entries pertaining to issuance of D.Ds marked as Exts. 8 to 15 were

made by debiting the loan account of M/S B. K. Enterprise. This

witness has also specifically added in his evidence that as he is not shown

the sanctioning letter in favour of M/S. B. K. Enterprise in court,

therefore he is not in a position to confirm to what limit it was sanctioned

in favour of M/S B. K. Enterprise and that on going through Exts 3

and 4, what he could gather were that the amount were transferred from

the account of M/S. B. K. Enterprise, but without obtaining

relevant cheque or request letter from the borrower i.e. M/S B. K.

Enterprise, as he did not find any request letter or cheque from M/S B.

K. Enterprise relating to the transaction as shown in Ext-7 (Loan

Ledger Folio), that he also did not find any request letter or cheque

for the Demand Drafts (Exts 14 & 15) prepared for Gauhati Tant

Shal Udyog.

According to PW-6, the entire outstanding amount as credited the

account of M/S. B. K. Enterprise was Rs. 75,49,752/- as on

24.08.2005.

Thus in a nut- shell, what transpires for the evidence of Md. Motiur

Rahaman, (PW-6), that although there was no irregularities at all, in

issuing the DDs under Exts-8 to 15, for which the amount for the DD,

along with its commission were received by the bank, but he could not

see the relevant cheques or request letters from the borrower,

i.e. M/S B.K. Enterprise, relating to such transactions, more particularly

with respect to transactions under Exts-3, 4, 14 and 15. Another

important matter that is gathered from the evidence of the material

witness PW 6 that while sanctioning a loan, every security document

guaranteeing the repayment of the loan is to be entered in the

security Register.

12

(V) (a) Another U.CO. Bank (United Commercial Bank) officer, Shyamal Chandra

Dhar (PW-18), the then Chief Manager of the U.CO. bank during the

period of 16.07.2007 to 30.05.2011 is examined by the Prosecution, in

support of its case. According to him, he handed over 81 Nos of

documents in favour of M.S.Singhal, the then Addl. S.P. Guwahati,

through the seizure Memo dated 4.11.2007 (Ext- 78, Proved in original).

Besides proving the Debit Vouchers and Demand Drafts (Exts3 to 6, Exts

8 to 13 and 16) involved in this case; PW-18 has also stated in his

evidence that the name of the applicant with respect to the Demand

Draft(Ext-5) is written is “o/selves”, meaning ourselves i.e. the bank

itself and that their cannot be same serial number with respect to two

different demand drafts.

(b) During cross-examination, this witness had specifically added that

although this case was instituted relating to illegal opening of the Loan

account of M/S B.K. Enterprise; he was having no such documents – like

loan Sanction Register, Security Register, Loan Ledger Folio of the

concerned Loan File to show that the Loan Account of M/S B.K. Enterprise

was false, illegal, irregular or fraudulent; that there was no questions of

commission of fraud in debiting the DDs (Demand Drafts, Exts 8 to 15)

from the loan account of M/S B. K. Enterprise, in as much as, there

cannot be any bar in issuing the demand drafts at his request, debiting

from his Loan Account maintained at the branch and that the concerned

Bank officers had not committed fraud in issuing those 8 (eight)

Exhibits.

(c) According to PW 18, he was also not in a position to show that the

same branch Serial No, as were assigned to the 3 (three) DDs bearing

Nos- 975177 to 975179 were also allotted to Exts 11 to 13.

(d) Thus from the evidence of PWs 6 and PW 18, it is crystal clear

that with respect to demand drafts- Exts 5 and 16, the applicant was

the bank itself i.e. the U.CO. Bank, Tezpur branch, in violation of the

Rule and prescribed procedure that it should be applied by the applicant

itself, as already discussed.

13

(VI) Madhu Sudan Singhal (PW 19), the then DY. S.P/ Addl. S.P.CBI,

Guwahati, who took over the charge of investigation of this case w.e.f 18.07.2007 from

his predecessor A.K. Saha, the then Dy. S.P till 31.03.2008, while he handed over the

charge of investigation, on his transfer to N.Khamrang, the then Inspector. During

investigation, according to PW 19, he collected documents through various production

cum seizure memos (Exts 44 to 45, 63 to 64 and 76 to 78), recorded the statements of

various witnesses and procured hand writings and signatures of accused Diganta

Chakraborty. It is also added by PW 19 in his evidence that he made seizure of security

documents, whatever were available, that he had not seized the loan sanction Register,

as individual Ledger Folios pertaining to various accounts in question were seized and

that so far as the loan documents including loan sanction letter with respect to B. K.

Enterprise is concerned, he could not seize the same, as the same were not available in

the file and that requisition placed for documents were pertaining to the loan advanced

to M/S. B. K. Enterprise.

(VII) Rohit Kapur (PW 21), the then Addl. SP, CBI, ACB, Guwahati is the other

investigating officer (I.O) in connection with this case, who took over the charge of

investigation from N.G. Khamrang on 04.06.2008 and accordingly he submitted the

charge-sheet dated 30.06.2009 (Ext-87). During investigation, according to PW21, he

collected documents through the copy of the receipt memo dated 09.09.2008, (marked

Y), opinion of handwriting expert from GEQD, Kolkata (Ext 83, proved in original),

collected specimen signatures and handwritings respectively that of accused Biju Kalita

and that of accused Ratish Choudhury (Exts 17 series and 19 series). It is also

specifically added by PW 21 that total wrongful loss involved in this case was that of Rs.

50 Lakhs along with commissions on Demand Drafts. It is also found from the evidence

of PW 21, that vide sl. No. 5 of the document marked Y, he had received the Demand

Draft register of the Tezpur branch from 01.04.2001 to 31.03.2006, but he did not find

any loan sanction register, loan sanctioned file, loan security documents and loan

security Register, among the documents seized by his predecessor; that he also called

for such document from the bank authority, but the bank authority failed to produce it.

(VIII)(a) Thus on a conjoint meticulous reading of the evidence on record of the

PWs, as already discussed; more particularly from the evidence of PWs 2,3 and 6 it is

evident that the M/S B. K. Enterprise, Tezpur availed the loan under Account No. L-

3/140 of the U.CO. Bank Tezpur w.e.f 01.02.2005 and that different demand drafts

were issued under Exts 8 to 15, debiting from the said Loan Account, as shown in

Ext. 7 (the Loan Ledger Folio).

14

(b) It is also crystal clear, as discussed above, from the evidence of PWs 1 &

17 that the particulars of security should be entered in the appropriate column of the

Loan Ledger as referred to under para 1.1.9 of the Manual of Instructions

(Ext-2) and that on a careful perusal of the Loan Ledger Folio (Ext-7), it is crystal clear

that this was not done by the accused Diganta Chakraborty, even being the Branch

Manager of the concerned branch, for whatever the reason that might be. It is pertinent

to specifically mention here that the column meant for ‘security’ under Ext.7, is/was

however, left blank.

(c) Further, as narrated by Motiur Rahman (PW-6), he could not see the

relevant cheques or request letters from the borrower i.e. the M/S B. K. Enterprise with

respect to transactions under Exts. 3,4,14 and 15. From the testimony of this material

witness also, it can be safely gathered that every security document guaranteeing the

repayment of the loan is to be entered in the security Register.

(d) Moreover, from the evidence of PW-6 and 18 it is crystal clear that with

respect to Demand Drafts- Exts 5 and 16, the applicant was the bank itself i.e. the

U.CO. Bank, Tezpur Branch, in violating of the Rule and the prescribed procedure that it

should be applied by the applicant itself.

(e) The loan Account in question of the B. K. Enterprise is evidently not

produced before the Court for obvious reasons. According to Madhu Sudan Singhal (PW-

19, I.O); he could not seize the loan document including the loan sanction letters of B.

K. Enterprise, as the same were not available in the file. According to Rohit Kapoor (the

other I.O, PW-21); he also called for such loan documents from the bank authority, but

the bank authority failed to produce it.

(f) In his statement recorded u/sec 313 Cr. P.C the accused Biju Kalita has

added that he obtained a term loan from the U.CO. Bank , Tezpur Branch.

(B) THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

In this connection, the learned P.P., as fortified by his written arguments,

has strongly submitted that the said loan in question in favour of M/S. B. K. Enterprise,

Tezpur was sanctioned on the basis of the Loan Ledger Folio (Exhibit-7), without

following the essential banking norms- i.e. the borrower did neither apply for the loan in

question, nor it was sanctioned in a proper way, in compliance to the Manual of

Instructions of the Bank.

15

Referring to the evidence of PWs 2 and 3, as already discussed, the

learned P.P. has submitted that it appears from the Loan Ledger Folio (Ext-7) that the

loan account in question was opened on 01.02.2005 with loan amount of Rs. 10 Lakhs.

Further, referring to the evidence PWs 1 and 17, the learned P.P has also submitted that

para 1.1.9 of chapter 13 of Manual of Instruction (Ext-2) stipulates that the particulars

of documents relating to the advance against time deposit receipts should be entered in

security ledger and checked and initialed by an authorized officer; that the particulars

of security should also be entered in the appropriate column in loan ledger and in case

of overdraft/cash-credit in the current account ledger as well as in drawing power

register and checked and initialed by an authorized officer.

That being the position, as submitted by the learned PP, it is crystal clear

that the accused Diganta Chakraborty being a public servant did neither take any

security nor follow the banking procedure, while granting loan in question by way of

Loan ledger folio (Ext-7) in favour of B. K. Enterprise. What interest did he bear,

being admittedly the Branch Manager of the said bank to become an applicant with

respect to the Demand Drafts- Exts 5 and 16, the learned PP has questioned.

According to the learned P.P., it is nothing but the influence of deep rooted conspiracy

between the two accused.

On the other hand, the learned counsel of the accused Diganta

Chakraborty, as strongly fortified in his written arguments, has submitted that the

prosecution has failed to prove through the support of Manual of Instructions that the

Loan Ledger Folio (Ext-7) was not prepared by observing the Rules/Procedures.

Further, the learned counsel of the accused Diganta Chakraborty, has also

submitted that the Demand Draft Issue Register, as stated to have seized by A.C. Slath

(PW-17) the same was deliberately suppressed by the prosecution, not exhibiting the

same (Document Y), which is in fact a fraud practised upon the court.

In any view of the matter, on a careful scrutiny of the concerned Loan

Ledger Folio (Ext-7) it cannot be reasonably understood, as to what

restrained/prevented the concerned Branch Manager of the bank i.e. the accused

Diganta Chakraborty, at the relevant time, from recording the securities in connection

with the Loan Ledger in question i.e. in Ext-7, as required under para 1.1.9 of Ext-2, as

discussed above, if the same was so obtained.

(C) JUDICIAL DECISIONS, AS ARE RELIED UPON

16

BY THE LEARNED COUNSELS

In support of his argument, as discussed above, the learned Advocate for

the accused Diganta Chakraborty has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in S.P Chengal Varaya Naidu (since deceased) represented by his LRs Vs

Jaganath (dead) represented by his L.Rs reported in (1994)1 SCC 1; AIR 1994

S.C. 853; wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a litigant, who approaches

the court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him, which are relevant to

the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other

side, then he would be the guilty of playing fraud as well as on the opposite-party.

On the other hand, the learned P.P. has relied on the decision of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra through CBI Vs Anantrai

Doshi and others reported in 2014 Cr. L J 4879 (S.C) wherein it was held that the

offences when committed in relation with banking activities including offences u/secs

420/471 IPC have harmful affect and threaten the well-being of the society. Further,

relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sushil Suri –vs- CBI and

another reported in AIR 2011 SC 1717, the learned P.P. has submitted that merely

dues of the bank have been paid up, the applicant cannot be exonerated from criminal

liability.

Considering the circumstances in its entirety, coupled with the circumstances as

subscribed below, the omission to produce the D.D. issue Register in question before the

Court, in my considered view, cannot be said to be so vital, so as to go to the root of

the case.

(D) OFFENCE OF CRIMINAL CONSIPIRACY

In K. Hashim –vs- State of Tamilndu, reported in (2005) 1 SCC

237, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that for an offence punishable u/s 120B IPC, it

is not necessary to prove that the perpetrators expressly agreed to do or caused to be

done illegal acts; the agreement may be proved by necessary implications.

Similarly, in Saju –vs- State of Kerala, reported in AIR (2001)SC

175; (2001)1 SCC 378, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that to prove the charge

of criminal conspiracy, the prosecution is required to establish that two or more persons

had agreed to do or caused to be done, an illegal act or an act which is not illegal, by

illegal means. It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such crime,

17

or is merely incidental to the object. To attract the applicability of Sec.120B, it has to be

proved that all the accused had the intention and they had agreed to commit the crime.

There is no doubt that conspiracy is hatched in private and in secrecy, for which direct

evidence would rarely be available. It is also not necessary that each member to a

conspiracy must know all the details of the conspiracy. There must be unity of object or

purpose but, there may be plurality of means, sometime even unknown to one another

amongst the conspirators. The gist of offence is an agreement to break the law. The

parties to such an agreement will be guilty of criminal conspiracy for the illegal act

agreed to be done, has not been done.

(E) IRESISTIBLE INFERENCE

In the light of above discussions, the irresistible inference that can be

drawn that the accused Diganta Chakraborty, evidently being the then Branch Manager

of the UCO Bank, Tezpur Branch, a public servant, in pursuance of such criminal

conspiracy with the accused Biju Kalita, the proprietor of M/S B.K. Enterprise, Tezpur;

with a view to offer him benefits, he sanctioned the loan in question under A/C No. L-

3/140 without following the existing Rules, like- without obtaining the security

documents/not reflecting the same in the concerned Loan Ledger Folio

(Ext.7) etc.; dishonestly by himself in his own interest issued some of the Demand

Drafts (like Exts. 3, 4, 14 & 15), without obtaining cheque or request letter from the

applicant issued the demand drafts- Exts 5 and 16 by the bank itself, in violation of the

prescribed Rules, with a view to benefit the accused Biju Kalita, dishonestly

debited/allowed to debit huge amount by way of Demand Drafts under Exts. 8 to 15 for

the benefit of the other accused Biju Kalita; misused the public money, as entrusted on

him by virtue of holding the post of Branch Manager of the said bank, cheated the UCO

Bank, Tezpur Branch by creating valuable security like – Demand Drafts etc., with the

sole purpose of illegally benefitting the other accused Biju Kalita, prepared false and

fabricated documents like – Loan Ledger Folio (Ext.7), without reflecting the security

documents as obligatorily required to be reflected under the law, as already discussed,

and used/allowed to use those forged documents like – Ext.7, as genuine, even after

knowing the same to be forged.

In the above premises, both the accused Diganta Chakraborty and Biju

Kalita are liable to be punished u/secs. 120B, 409/120B, 420/120B, 467/120B and

471/120B IPC.

18

Further, the accused Diganta Chakraborty, admittedly and evidently being

the then Manager of the UCO Bank, a public servant, is found to have committed the

offence of criminal misconduct for converting the bank’s money entrusted on him

allowing/facilitating the other accused Biju Kalita to misappropriate a huge amount of

money, by way of loan frustrating the very purpose for which it is to be disbursed in

favour of the public, and thus allowed/favoured the other accused Biju Kalita to obtain

pecuniary advantage abusing his official position.

The accused Diganta Chakraborty is, therefore, also found and held guilty

for offences u/secs. 13(1) (c) & (d) r/w Sec.13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988.

The charges u/secs. 13(1) (c) & (d) r/w Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988, in my considered view, appears to have not attracted as against

the other accused Biju Kalita, the proprietor of M/S B.K. Enterprise, Tezpur, he being a

private individual and therefore, he is acquitted of the said charges.

(F) IN ANSWERING THE POINST FOR DETERMINATION

In the light of above discussions, the points for determination, as

posed above, are answered as follows :

a) With respect to the points for determination No.(1), (2) & (3) - are

answered in negative.

b) The point for determination No.(4) is answered to that effect that in

pursuance of criminal conspiracy with the other accused Biju Kalita, the

proprietor of M/S B.K. Enterprise, Tezpur, the accused Diganta Chakraborty,

being admittedly the then Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Tezpur Branch,

committed illegal act of granting loan in favour of M/S B.K. Enterprise without

executing proper loan documents and thus, dishonestly debited/allowed to be

debited the loan amount to the extent of Rs.50 Lakhs, arbitrarily by way of

8(eight) Demand Drafts, under Exts. 8 to 15 by abusing his official power and

position, without even receiving any application/ cheque for issuing some of

the demand drafts, more particularly, with respect to Exts.3, 4, 14 & 15.

(G) FINDINGS :

19

In the light of the discussions made above, the accused Diganta

Chakraborty and Biju Kalita are found and held guilty for offences u/secs

120B, 409 r/w 120B, 420 r/w 120B, 467 r/w 120B, 471 r/w 120B IPC and that

the accused Diganta Chakraborty is also found and held guilty for offences

u/secs. 13(2) r/w Sec 13(1) (c) & (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Heard the accused persons on sentence and their statements u/s 248(2)

are recorded.

Both of them submit that they are the sole bread winner of their

respective families.

As submitted by the accused Diganta Chakraborty, he has already lost his

wife. He is to look after his dependant daughter, who has no mother in this world.

On the other hand, according to accused Biju Kalita, he is also to look

after his ailing mother and two school and college going son and daughter.

And in the above premises, both of them prayed before the court to

consider their cases sympathetically and leniently.

(H) OBSERVATION OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT ON CORRUPTION

In Nimmagadda Prasad (appellant) -vs- CBI (respondent) reported in

(2013) 7 SCC 466, at para 26, the Hon’ble Supreme court observed that

unfortunately, in the last few years, the country has been seeing an alarming rise in

white collar crimes, which has affected the fibre of country’s economic structure.

Incontrovertibly, economic offences have serious repercussions on the development of

the country as a whole.

In State of Maharashtra, through CBI (appellant) -vs- Mahesh G. Jain

(respondent) reported in (2013) 8 SCC 119, at para 17, the Hon’ble Supreme court

has further observed that it should be borne in mind that historically corruption is a

disquiet disease for healthy governance. It has the potentiality to stifle the progress of a

civilized society. It ushers in an atmosphere of distrust. Corruption fundamentally is

perversion as infectious and an individual perversity can become a social evil.

20

In Vineet Narain and ors. –v- Union of India and another (1998)1

SCC 226, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows :

“Today, corruption in our country not only posses a grave danger to the

concept of constitutional governance, it also threatens the very foundation of the Indian

democracy and the Rule of Law. The magnitude of corruption in our public life is

incompatible with the concept of a socialist secular democratic republic. It cannot be

disputed that where corruption begins all rights end. Corruption devalues human rights,

chokes development and undermines justice, liberty, equality, fraternity which are the

core values in our Preambular vision. Therefore, the duty of the court is that any anti-

corruption law has to be interpreted and worked out in such a fashion as to strengthen

the fight against corruption.”

In Balakrishna Duttatrya Kumbhar v. State of Maharashtra

(2012) 12 SCC 384, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that corruption is not

only a punishable offence but also “Undermines human rights, indirectly violating them,

and systematic corruption, is a human rights’ violation in itself, as it leads to systematic

economic crimes.”

Again in State of Gujarat & aother v. Justice R.A. Mehta (Retd.) &

ors. (2013)3 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:

“Corruption in a society is required to be detected and eradicated at the

earliest as it shakes “ the socio-economic-political system in an otherwise healthy,

wealthy, effective and vibrating society”. Liberty cannot last long unless the State is able

to eradicate corruption from public life. Corruption is a bigger threat than external threat

to the civil society as it corrodes the vitals of our polity and society. Corruption is

instrumental in not proper implementation and enforcement of policies adopted by the

Government. Thus, it is not merely a fringe issue but a subject-matter of grave concern

and requires to be decisively dealt with.”

(I) OBSERVATION OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT ON SENTENCE

In Hazara Singh (appellant) -vs- Raj Kumar & others

(respondent) reported in (2013) 9 SCC 516, the Hon’ble Supreme court

referred to its 3 Judge Bench decision in Ahmed Hussein Vali, Mohammed Saiyed

& another -vs- State of Gujarat reported in (2009)7 SCC 254; wherein it was

observed that justice demands that Courts should impose punishment befitting the crime

so that the Courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime. The Court must not only keep

21

in view the rights of the victim of the crime, but the society at large too, while

considering the imposition of appropriate punishment. The Court will be failing in its

duty, if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime, which has been committed

not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which both the

criminal and the victim belong.

Further, in Sumer Singh (appellant) -vs- Suraj Bhan Singh &

others (respondent) reported in (2014) 7 SCC 323, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

referred to its previous decision in State of M.P. -vs- Saleem @ Chamaru &

another, reported in (2005) 5 SCC 554, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme court

opined that the object of sentencing should be to protect society and to deter the

criminal that being the avowed object of law. It further ruled that, it is expected that the

Courts would operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which

reflects the conscience of the society and the sentencing process has to be stern where

it should be.

(J) SENTENCE AND ORDER PASSED IN THIS CASE

Considering the circumstances in its entirety and in the light of

observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as already discussed, both the

accused - Diganta Chakraborty and Biju Kalita are sentenced to undergo S.I.

for 4 years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each for offence u/s 120B

IPC. In default of payment of such fine, they are sentenced to undergo S.I. for

another 6 months by each.

They are also sentenced to undergo S.I. for 4 years each and to

pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each for offence u/s 409 r/w 120B IPC, in default of

payment of fine, they are sentenced to undergo S.I. for another 6 months.

They are further sentenced to undergo S.I. for 4 years each and to

pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each for offence u/s 420 r/w 120B IPC. In default

of payment of such fine, each of them are sentenced to undergo S.I. for

another 6 months.

22

They are further sentence to undergo 4 years each and to pay a

fine of Rs. 10,000/- each for offence u/s 467 r/w 120B IPC. In default of

payment of such fine, they are to undergo S.I. for another 6 months.

Further, they are also sentence to undergo S.I. for 4 years each and

to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each for offence u/s 471 r/w 120 B IPC. In

default of payment of such fine, they are to undergo S.I. for another 6 months

by each.

Further, the accused Diganta Chakraborty is sentenced to undergo

S.I. for 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for offence u/s 13(1)(c) r/w

sec 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also to undergo S.I.

for 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for offence u/s 13(1)(d) r/w sec

13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

In default of payment of such fine, he is to undergo S.I. for two

months only on each count.

The sentences are to run concurrently. The period of detention, if

any, already undergone by the accused persons, will be set off.

Supply free copies of the judgments to each of the accused, immediately.

Given under my hands and seal of this court on this 30 th day of

May, 2016.

DICTATED AND CORRECTED BY ME,

Sd/- Sd/-

(P.C. Das) (P.C. Das) Special Judge, CBI, Assam, Special Judge, CBI, Assam, Additional CBI Court No.2, Additional CBI Court No.2, CHANDMARI, GUWAHATI-3. CHANDMARI, GUWAHATI-3.

23

(APPENDIX IS ON THE NEXT PAGE)

A P P E N D I X

1) Prosecution Witnesses:- 1) Tapan Kr. Sarma.2) Nabadeep Saikia.3) Shanti Ranjan Sarkar.4) Dwipendra Kr. Sarma.5) Biswanath Medhi,6) Matiur Rahman,7) Bhagirath Kohar,8) Bikash Dutta,9) Nirmal Ch. Mahanta,10) Surajit Ray,11) Sultan Ali Neki Khan,12) Rajesh Sarma,13) Prahlad Das,14) B. Sitaram Shetty,15) Alak Kr. Ray,16) Karunakar Sarma,17) A.C. Slath,18) Shyamal Ch. Dhar,19) Madhu Sudhan Singhal,20) Bhakti Pada Mishra,21) Rohit Kapoor.

2) Defence Witnesses :- NIL.

3) Prosecution Exhibits :- Ext. 1 – Manual of Instructions (Vol-VI, Part-A).

Ext. 2 – Manual of Instructions (Vol-VI, Chapter-11 to 19).

Ext. 3 – Loan Debit Voucher dtd.01.2.2005,Ext. 4 – Demand Draft/Mail transfer order dtd.01.2.2005,Ext. 5 – Demand Draft/Mail transfer order

dtd.01.3.2005,Ext. 6 – Debit Voucher dtd.02.3.2005.Ext. 7 – Loan Ledger Folio of M/S B.K. Enterprise.

24

Ext. 8, 9 & 10- Demand Drafts bearing Nos.974766-68 dtd.22.1.2005.

Ext. 11, 12 & 13 - Demand Drafts bearing Nos.975221-23 dtd.01.3.2005.

Ext. 14 & 15 - Demand Drafts bearing Nos.974877 & 974876 dtd.01.2.2005.

Ext.16 - Demand Draft/Mail transfer order dtd.22.1.2005,Ext. 17 – Specimen Writing of Biju Kalita.Ext. 18 – Specimen Writing and Signatures of Ram Prasad Gupta.Ext.19 – Specimen Writing and Signatures of Ratish Choudhury.Ext.20 – Personal File of Ratish Choudhury.Ext.21 To 42 – Specimen Hand Writing/

Signature sheets of Diganta Chakraborty.

Ext.43 – Service Holder of Diganta Chakraborty.

Ext.44 - Seizure Memo.Ext.45 - Production-cum-Seizure Memo.Ext.46 - Current Account Opening Form of

A/C No.26622.Ext.47- Specimen Signature Card of Subala Devi.Ext. 48 – Statement Of Accounts of A/C No.26622.Ext. 49 – Deposit Slip.Ext. 50 – Cheque No.347077

dtd.27.1.2005.Ext. 51 – Cheque No.347078

dtd.27.1.2005.Ext. 52 – Cheque No.347080

dtd.01.2.2005.Ext. 53 – Cheque No.347081

dtd.02.2.2005.Ext. 54 & 55 – Demand Drafts/Mail transfer orders

25

dtd.02.2.2005Ext. 56 – Cheque No.347079

dtd.31.1.2005.Ext. 57 & 58 – Deposit vouchers

03.2.2005.Ext. 59 – Cheque No.347084

dtd.05.2.2005.Ext. 60 – Cheque No.347083

dtd.07.2.2005.Ext. 61 – Cheque No.347085

dtd.07.2.2005.Ext. 62 – Cheque No.347086

dtd.17.2.2005.Ext. 63 – Seizure Memo dtd16.11.2007.Ext. 64 – Seizure Memo dtd06.11.2007.Ext. 65 – Seized Account Opening Form of

Current A/C No.3417.Ext. 66 – Seized Statements of account of

Current A/C No.3417.Ext. 67- Deposit Slip dtd.08.3.2005.Ext. 68 – Cheque No.567652

dtd.10.3.2005.Ext. 69 – Cheque No.567651

dtd.10.3.2005.Ext. 70 – Cheque No.567653

dtd.11.3.2005.Ext. 71 – Cheque No.567656

dtd.12.3.2005.Ext. 72 – Cheque No.567657

dtd.12.3.2005.Ext. 73 – Cheque No.567654

dtd.11.3.2005.Ext. 74 – Cheque No.567658

dtd.14.3.2005.Ext. 75 – Cheque No.567661

dtd.08.4.2005.Ext. 76 – Seizure Memo dtd.05.9.2007. Ext. 77 – Seizure Memo dtd.14.9.2007.Ext. 78 – Seizure Memo dtd.04.11.2007.Ext. 79 – FIR.Ext. 80 & 81 – Specimen signatures/

writing sheets of Diganta Chakraborty.

26

Ext. 82- Forwarding Letter dtd.09.9.2008.Ext. 83 – Opinion of Govt. Examiner on

Questioned documents.Ext. 84 – Reasoning’s.Ext. 85 – Forwarding Letter.Ext. 86 – Case Abstract.Ext. 87 – Charge Sheet.Document Marked ‘X’- Photocopies of documents submitted by accused Biju Kalita.Document marked “Y”- Copy of the letter dtd.09.9.2008, issued by A.C. Slath.

4) Defence Exhibits : NIL.

Sd/- (P.C. Das)

Special Judge, CBI, Assam, Additional CBI Court No.2,

CHANDMARI, GUWAHATI-3.