IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE, C.B.I., ASSAM, …kamrupjudiciary.gov.in/Nov -16...

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE, C.B.I., ASSAM, GUWAHATI

Special Case No. 55/2004(New)Special Case No.22(c)/1997(Old)

Present :- Sri M.K. Bhattacharjee Special Judge, CBI, Assam, Guwahati.

Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)

-Versus-

1. Sh. Mahesh Kalita (A-1)

2. Sh. Digendra Haloi (A-2)

3. Sh. Bhupendra Kr. Bora (A-4)

4. Sh. Nripendra Kr. Bora (A-5)

5. Sh. Rajendra Pd. Sarma (A-7)

6. Sh. Amarjyoti Bezbaruah (A-8)

7. Sh. Anup Bora (A-9)

8. Sh. Debashish Bezbaruah (A-10)

9. Sh. Mukut Medhi (A-11)

10. Sh. Utpal Medhi (A-12)

11. Sh. Puna Das (A-13)

12. Sh. Ranjit Kr. Deka (A-15)

13. Sh. Ratul Kr. Das (A-16)

14. Sh. Nagendra Saikia (A-17)

15. Sh. Manik Ch. Bora (A-18)

16. Sh. Abdul Matin (A-19)

17. Sh. Nabaj Kalita (A-20)

18. Sh. Gautam Saikia (A-21)

19. Sh. Amrijyoti Bora (A-22)

20. Sh. Surajit Bora (A-23)

21. Sh. Madan Bora (A-24)

U/s 120B, 420 IPC & 13(2) of P.C.Act

…….. Accuseds.

2

Learned lawyer for the C.B.I. : Mr. R. C. Rao, Sr. PP , CBI

Learned Lawyers for defence : Mr. Kamal Agarwal, senior advocate

Mr. Bhaskar Pradhan, senior advocate

Mr. A.K. Purkayastha, advocate

Mr. P. Kataky, advocate

Mr. S.K. Lahkar, advocate

Mr. Debojit Talukdar, advocate

Mr. N.K. Mazumdar, advocate

Mr. A. Deka Lahkar, advocate

Mr. Ranjan Jyoti Baruah, advocate

Mr. S. Das, advocate

Mr. Pankaj Choudhary, advocate

Mr. Kabin Saikia, advocate

Mr. H. Kalita, advocate

Mr. N. Mishra , advocate

Dates of recording Prosecution Evidence : 20.01.2000, 30.03.2000,

21.01.2002, 22.01.2002, 08.05.2002, 25.07.2002, 26.07.2002, 07.10.2002,

08.10.2002, 06.03.2003, 16.03.2005, 18.05.2005, 09.08.2005, 21.03.2006,

01.09.2006, 02.09.2006, 06.11.2006, 07.11.2006, 08.01.2007, 11.06.2007,

25.09.2007, 23.05.2008, 26.06.2008, 27.06.2008, 02.09.2008, 18.11.2008,

26.03.2009, 27.03.2009, 08.12.2009, 07.12.2009, 08.12.2009, 17.03.2011,

13.06.2011, 02.09.2011, 10.01.2012, 06.03.2012, 07.03.2012, 18.05.2012,

19.05.2012, 25.06.2012, 26.06.2012, 03.08.2012, 04.08.2012, 10.09.2012,

12.09.2012, 13.09.2012, 03.05.2013, 04.05.2013, 17.06.2013, 18.06.2013,

22.07.2013, 23.07.2013, 01.04.2014, 05.05.2014, 06.05.2014, 11.06.2014,

12.06.2014.

Dates of recording Defence Evidence: 31.07.2015, 07.10.2015, 19.11.2015,

10.03.2016

Argument concluded on : 26.10.2016

Judgement delivered on : 10.11.2016

3

J U D G M E N T

The prosecution case in brief is as follows. During the year 1991-92, late

Dr. J.P. Dutta was posted as Officer-in-Charge, ICDP, Tezpur and A-1 Mahesh

Kalita, A-2 Digendra Haloi, A-3 Hemanta Borthakur(since deceased), Bhabit Ch.

Mahanta and Lalit Sarma (both approvers) were posted as Cashier, LDA, UDA-

cum store keeper, Accountant and Peon respectively. A-4, Bhupendra Kr. Borah,

A-5 Nripendra Kr. Borah, A-6 Jibon Borkakaty (since expired during trial) and A-

7 Rajendra Pd. Sarma were posted as Treasury officer, Accountant, Supdt.-cum-

Sr. Accountant-cum LOC Assistant respectively in Sonitpur Treasury during the

month of March-April, 1992. A-8 Amarjyoti Bezbaruah, A-9 Anup Borah, A-10,

Debashish Bezbarua, A-11 Mukut Medhi, A-12 Utpal Medhi, A-13 Pona Das, A-

14 Girish Deka (since expired), A-15, Deka, A-16 Ratul Ch. Das, A-17 Nagendra

Saikia, A-18 Manik Ch. Bora, A-19 Abdul Matin, A-20, Nabaj Kalita, A-21 Gautam

Saikia, A-22 Amritjyoti Bora, A-23, Surajit Bora, A-24 Madan Bora and A-25 R.

Bora @ Jyoti Das were private suppliers and contractors of ICDP, Tezpur. The

case against A-25 was split up vide order dated 19.10.2015 as he was found to

be of unsound mind and was not in a position to face and understand the trial.

2. It was alleged that A-8 to A-25, as mentioned above, in pursuance to a

criminal conspiracy with A-1 to A-7 prepared a large number of false split up bills

in the name of their respective firms claiming payments for supply of

medicines/different articles and execution of various works namely, earth filling,

repairing and construction in the premises of ICDP, Tezpur and other offices,

centres and sub-centres under the ICDP, Tezpur without supplying the

medicines and without undertaking the aforesaid works and thus cheated the

Govt. of Assam. A-1 to A-7 being Govt. employees actively conspired with each

other and with the remaining accused in preparing and passing the false bills. It

was further alleged that the bills were procured by late Dr. J. P. Dutta, Officer-in-

Charge, ICDP, Tezpur at the relevant time, from A-8 to A-25 in the names of

their respective firms and such bills were prepared by A-1, A-2 and Bhabit

Mahanta and Lalit Sarma (both Approvers). The then Officer in charge, ICDP,

Tezpur passed those bills for payment and sent to Sonitpur Treasury though no

sanction for such payment was accorded by the competent authority and no fund

for such payment was made available by the Directorate of Animal Husbandry

4

and Veterinary Department, Government of Assam. It was also alleged that in

Sonitpur Treasury A-4 to A-7 processed those bills and made the pay orders

though there was no fund, LOC and sanction order from the competent

authority. The bills were subsequently sent to SBI, Tezpur after being finally

passed by A-4 and payment was made by the bank to Officer-in-Charge, ICDP,

Tezpur in the form of DCR and subsequently those DCRs were en-cashed by late

Dr. J. P. Dutta through Bhabit Mahanta (approver) and cash so received were

entered in a Cash Book by A-1 and thereafter, payments were shown to have

been made to different accused against their respective money receipts which

were also prepared by A-1 and other accused persons. The moot case of the

prosecution was that all the accused in pursuance of criminal conspiracy with

each other dishonestly and fraudulently cheated the Govt. of Assam to the tune

of Rs.30,15,459/-.

3. After receipt of the compliant of the aforesaid activity, a case was

registered by ACB, Assam vide. FIR No 6/93 dated 23.07.93.

Subsequently the case was transferred to the CBI for investigation and CBI

registered a fresh FIR being RC No.3(A)/94-ACU-I and took up the investigation

and on completion of investigation submitted charge sheet against the accused

U/S 120B, 420, 467, 471, 477A of the IPC and 13(2) of the P.C. Act. Meanwhile,

A-3 Hemanta Borthakur expired and hence the case against him was closed and

during investigation the then OC, ICDP, Tezpur Dr. J.P. Dutta expired and Bhabit

Ch. Mahanta and Lalit Sarma were made approvers. During trial, A-6 Jibon

Borkakoty and A-14 Girish Deka expired and case against them stood abated. A-

25 was found to be of unsound mind and the case against him was filed vide

order dated 19.10.2015.

4. After furnishing of copies of the materials and documents submitted

before this Court by the I/O U/S 173 Cr. P.C., my learned Predecessor heard

both sides on the point of consideration of charge and on perusal of all relevant

documents, charged the accused as under. A-1, A-2 and A-4 to A-25 were

charged U/S 120B, 420 IPC. A-1, A-2 and A-4 to A-7 were charged U/S 13(1)(d)

read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988. The charges were read over and explained

to the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5

5. After examining 54 witnesses including the I/O, prosecution case was

closed. The accused were examined U/S 313 Cr. P.C wherein they stated that

they were not involved in any kind of criminal conspiracy and cheating. The

accused who were public servants stated that they discharged their duties

bonafide and there was no such intentional conduct for which they could be

stated to have committed criminal misconduct. A-4 Bhupendra Kumar Borah

examined himself as DW 1 and took the plea that during the relevant period he

was not posted as Treasury Officer of Sonitpur Treasury as he was transferred to

Hamren Sub-Treasury.

6. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION :

(1) Whether all the accused along with two approvers, namely, Bhabit

Mahanta and Lalit Ch. Sarma agreed to do or caused to be done an

illegal act by illegal means to cheat the Govt. of Assam to the tune of

Rs.30,15,459/- through payment of bills against which no medicine or

less medicine were supplied and no construction and repairing work

was done ?

(2) Whether all the accused in pursuance of their criminal conspiracy

cheated the Govt. of Assam to the tune of Rs.30,15,459/- ?

(3) Whether A-1, A-2 and A-4, A-5 & A-7 being public servants during the

period 1991-92 by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing their

position as such public servants obtained for themselves or for other

persons pecuniary benefit to the tune of Rs.30,15,459/- from the

Govt. of Assam and thereby committed criminal misconduct ?

(4) Whether A-11 and A-12 cheated the Govt., of Assam through the

Vety. Dept to the tune of Rs.401946/- by preparing and submitting

large number of false and undated split bills of M/S Pragjyotishpur

Pharma Mach to OC, ICDP, Tezpur in respect of supply of medicines

and equipments against the said bills although no medicine and

equipment was supplied ?

(5) Whether A-8, A-9 & A-10 cheated the Govt. of Assam through the

Vety. Dept to the tune of Rs.689596/- by preparing and submitting

6

large no. of false and undated split bills of M/S United Enterprise,

Assam Drug House, AB Distributors, Assam Pharmaceuticals and Drug

Denus to OC, ICDP, Tezpur in respect of supply of medicines and

equipments against the said bills although no medicine and equipment

was supplied ?

(6) Whether A-15 cheated the Govt. of Assam through the Vety. Dept to

the tune of Rs.75500/- by preparing and submitting large no. of false

and undated split bills of M/S R & P Enterprises relating to repair and

construction of SM Centre at Salmara although no such repairing and

construction was done ?


the tune of Rs.150,000/- by preparing and submitting large no. of

false and undated split bills relating to repair and construction of ICDP

sub centre at Panpur and Singri although no such repairing and

construction was done ?

(8) Whether A-17 & A-18 cheated the Govt. of Assam through the Vety.

Dept to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- by preparing and submitting large

no. of false and undated split bills of M/S MS Enterprises and MB

Enterprises relating to repair and construction of SM Centre at Jamuali

and Panbari although so such repairing and construction was done ?



and undated split bills of M/S MK Enterprises relating to repairing of

driver’s quarter and construction work of driver’s room of ICDP,

Tezpur although no such repairing and construction was done ?

(10)Whether A-19 cheated the Govt. of Assam through the Vety. Dept to


and undated split bills of M/S Luit Enterprise relating to earth filling

work at SM Centre Siliphabari although no such earth filling was

done ?



and undated split bills of M/S TS Enterprises relating to repairing work

7

and earth filling work of ICDP Sub centre, Raomari although no such

repairing and construction was done ?



and undated split bills of M/S R B Enterprises relating to earth filling

and construction work at approach road of ICDP Sub Centre

kheonipather although no such earth filling and construction work was

done ?



and undated split bills of M/S Amarjyoti Bora relating to repairing

work of VAS quarter, FDO quarter and bull-shed although no such

was done ?



and undated split bills of M/S Surajit Bora relating to earth filling and

repairing work at SM Center, Rakhyasini, Rangapara and Jingubil

although no such was done ?

(15)Whether A-13 & A-14 cheated the Govt. of Assam through the Vety.

Dept to the tune of Rs.326000/- by preparing and submitting large

no. of false and undated split bills of M/S P D Enterprise relating to

earth filling and repairing work at ICDP Sub centre at Balijuri, Singri,

Rakhyasini and Bindupuri although no such was done ?

7. DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF :-

During argument ld. PP appearing for CBI submitted that the witnesses

had categorically stated that there was meeting of minds among all the accused,

i.e., the public servants and the private suppliers and contractors to cheat the

Govt. of Assam for illegally withdrawing money from the Govt. Exchequer which

was neither allotted nor sanctioned by the competent authority. He also stated

that bills in questions were prepared by some of the accused which was proved

by the testimony of the expert (PW 47). According to the prosecution case, the

key player in the entire transaction was Mr. J.P. Dutta, the then Officer-in-charge

of ICDP, Tezpur who as the Drawing and Disbursing officer withdrew the money

8

from the Treasury without any valid sanction or LOC. However, the aforesaid

person expired before filing of the charge sheet and hence he is not facing this

trial. Remaining public servants namely, A-1 & A-2 were the employees of ICDP,

Tezpur and A-4, A-5 & A-7 were the officers/employees of the Sonitpur Treasury,

Tezpur at the relevant time.

8. Defence argued that during his testimony, PW-54 (I/O) stated that the

“so-called” independent witnesses in presence of whom the specimen signatures

were alleged to have been obtained were not made witnesses in the case.

According to ld. Lawyers for the defence the entire process of obtaining of

specimen signatures was therefore under grave doubt. It was also stated that

mere exhibiting of the “opinion” of the expert (Ext 2080) on the specimen

signatures/ handwritings and questioned documents could not be read as

evidence since the concerned experts were not examined. It was also submitted

that along-with the so-called “opinion” there was no reasoning.

9. It was also submitted by the defence that PW-11 who was examined by

the prosecution for identifying the signatures of A-4 also admitted during cross-

examination that during his statement before the I/O he did not state that he

was acquainted with the signatures of Bhupendra Kr. Borah (A-4). Referring to

the testimony of PW-29 it was stated that during his cross-examination he

admitted that since the Treasury Officer used to sign in green ink he assumed

that the signatures appearing in Ext.8/102, 90/1, 42/1, 7/253, 18/1, 11/1,

12/111, 12/159, 14/1, 15/4, 19/82, 17/1 & 10/1 are the signatures of A-4 Sh.

Bhupendra Kr. Borah. By examining himself as DW 1, A-4 took the plea that in

the month of Sept, 91 when he was posted at Tezpur Treasury, he was

transferred as Treasury Officer of Hamreng Sub-Treasury and at the relevant

time, that is, in the month of March, 1992 he was not posted as Treasury officer

of Sontipur Treasury. DW-1 denied the signatures of Treasury officer appearing

in treasury vouchers Ext.7 to 19 to be his signatures.

10. It was also submitted that pardon to two approvers, namely, Lalit Ch.

Sarma and Bhabit Mahanta was granted in violation of the provisions of the

Sec.306 & 307 Cr. P.C. It was also submitted that the application seeking tender

9

of pardon was filed by the aforesaid two persons during the course of

investigation and before filing of the charge sheet. It was further submitted that

the grant of pardon during the course of investigation or during pre-committal

stage ought to have been dealt with by the concerned Judicial Magistrate.

However, on perusal of materials on record it did not appear to me that the

investigation carried out by the CBI had caused any prejudice to the accused.

There also did not appear anything on record to suggest that pardon was

granted to the two accused (approvers) in violation of laid down procedure.

11. The testimony of PW-47, Asstt. Govt. Examiner of Question Documents

was also referred to by the defence and it was mentioned that the Expert opinion

exhibited by him as Ext.2079, 2080, 2081 & 2082 were not the result of his own

examination of the questioned documents and the specimen writings /

signatures. It may however be mentioned here that two experts who examined

the relevant documents and submitted the report along with opinion were unable

to come to the Court to depose because one of them has since expired and

another was seriously ailing and was not in a fit physical and mental condition. It

may be pertinent to mention here that during further argument, on a specific

question asked by this court, Learned Senior PP, CBI, Mr. Rao stated that the

opinion of the expert contained in Ext 2082 did not pertain to this case and only

the opinion of the expert exhibited as Ext 2080 pertained to this case.

12. Admittedly, PW 47 only exhibited the opinion of the Government

Examiner of Questioned document in this case as Ext.2080. From the reading of

the opinion (Ext 2080) it appeared that specimen signature/ hand writing of A-2,

A-4, A-5, A-7, A-19, A-23 & A-24 tallied with the Questioned Documents No. 240,

243, 241, 242, 79, 30A & 37 respectively. However, pertinent relevant question is

whether Ext 2080 can be automatically read into evidence. PW 47, during cross

examination, stated that he had merely identified the signatures of H.M.Saxena

and R.K.Jain, the then Deputy GEQDs. He further admitted that expert opinions

are always based on reasons but in the court he did not see the reasons for the

opinion (Ext 2080). In the aforesaid context Ext 2080 cannot be automatically

read into evidence. Even the opinions are not accompanied with the reasons for

such opinion. However, expert opinion is not the only way to prove the

10

handwriting or signature of a person. Other modes of proving handwriting/

signature are provided in Section 67 of the Evidence Act. That apart, other

external and internal circumstances can also be taken into consideration for

proving handwriting or signature of a person.

13. Out of 20 accused facing trial now, A-1, A-2, A-4, A-5 & A-7 are public

servants. Let me first deal with them. PW-1, the then Commissioner and

Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Finance Department at the relevant time, was

the appointing and removing authority in respect of the Treasury officer in Assam

and A-4 was a treasury officer at the relevant time. PW-1 stated that having

gone through the report submitted by the CBI seeking sanction for prosecution

of A-4, he granted sanction after application of his mind. He proved the relevant

sanction order as Ext.1.

14. PW-2 was the Deputy Commissioner of Sonitpur District in the year 1997

and in his official capacity he accorded sanction for prosecution of A-5 & A-7. He

proved the sanction order as Ext.2. From his cross-examination it appeared that

he meticulously went through the entire report and documents submitted by CBI

seeking sanction for prosecution of the aforesaid two accused. In his cross-

examination nothing transpired which could indicate that the sanction order was

issued without application of mind.

15. PW-3, the then Director of Vety. & Animal Husbandry Department, Assam

granted sanction for prosecution of A-1 & A-2 who were employees of his

department. The sanction order was exhibited as Ext.3. In brief, sanction orders

issued for prosecution of the concerned public servants appeared to be perfectly

in order.

16. Prosecution case was that the accused (public servants) in active

collusion with the then concerned DDO Late, J.P. Dutta withdrew money from

the Government Exchequer through Sonitpur Treasury without any valid LOC or

sanction or allotment of fund against false and concocted bills submitted by the

suppliers and contractors. To prove the case prosecution examined three sets of

witnesses apart from the sanctioning authorities and handwriting expert. Out of

11

these three sets, one set deposed regarding issue of LOC and procedures

involved therein; another set proved the concerned bills including the writings/

signatures of A-1, A-2, A-4, A-5 & A-7 thereon and the other set deposed

regarding non- supply of medicines and non-execution of contract works.

17. It would be convenient to first look at as to how the LOCs were used to

be issued and how record of the same were used to be maintained. In that

respect, PW-4, PW-5 & PW-6 deposed before this Court. PW-4 was an Upper

Division Assistant in the Assam Secretariat in Vety. Department dealing with the

LOC matters. PW 5, the Deputy Secretary in the concerned department used to

communicate the issue of LOC and sanction of fund. PW-6 was an Upper

Division Assistant in the Directorate of Veterinary Department at Guwahati at the

relevant time. All of them narrated the procedures of issue of LOC. The LOC

register of the relevant time was exhibited as Ext.4 and LOC issued to the office

of the Officer-in-charge, ICDP, Tezpur for the month of March, 1992 was

exhibited as Ext.5. From cumulative reading of the testimonies of the aforesaid

three witnesses it appeared that the procedure for issuance of LOC in respect of

Veterinary and Animal Husbandry department of the Government of Assam, at

the relevant time, was that the Finance department of Govt. of Assam used to

issue LOCs month wise to the concerned government department after allotment

is made in the budget of a particular year. Thereafter, the LOC was sent from

the Finance department to the Veterinary Secretary and on receipt of the LOC of

a particular month, the Secretary of the Veterinary Dept would send the

particular LOC to the Director of the Veterinary Dept with a request to submit

DDO wise allocation within that particular amount for that particular month.

Thereafter, the Director would submit to the Secretary of the department

cyclostyled copy of DDO wise allocation of the amount against separate items of

the particular LOC against all DDOs within the limit allotted by the Finance

Department for approval. Thereafter, it would be processed in the concerned

department of the secretariat and thereafter it would be handed over to the

concerned official. The concerned Deputy Secretary would verify the same and

then put it up before the Financial Advisor of the department who used to look

after the details of the LOC. Ultimately, after getting approval from the

Commissioner and Secretary of the department it would be sent back to the

12

concerned department. It also appeared that month wise LOC register was

maintained in the Secretariat in Veterinary Department where all details of the

LOCs were mentioned. Out of the four copies, one copy would be retained with

the Veterinary Secretariat and three copies would be sent to the Directorate of

Veterinary and thereafter one copy would be sent to the DDO and one copy

would be sent to the concerned Treasury. The copy of the LOC meant for

Treasury officer would contain signature of the concerned Financial Advisor

though remaining three copies might not contain his signature. It appeared from

the Ext.4 & 5 that in the month of March, 1992 an LOC for Rs.6000/- only was

issued in favour of ICDP, Tezpur. During cross-examination, the defence

brought that the LOC register did not contain any certificate regarding the

pagination of the register but this fact alone did not appear to be enough to

discard the credibility of PW-4, PW-5 & PW-6. There was absolutely no reason to

disbelieve the evidence of those witnesses. That apart, it would be evident from

the testimonies of the relevant witnesses that against an LOC of Rs.6000/-, the

DDO of the ICDP, Tezpur (who died during investigation of the case) drew more

than Rupees Thirty lacs from the Government Exchequer. It was, therefore,

proved beyond all reasonable doubt that huge amount was withdrawn from the

government treasury without any LOC or sanction.

18. From the testimonies of PW 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26,

31, 39, 49, 50, 51 & 52, it appeared that there was neither any sufficient supply

of medicine or articles nor there was any meaningful construction/ repairing

works in the premises under the control of ICDP, Tezpur.

19. PW-13 who was a Grade-IV employee in the office of RIAO, Mission

Charali and in 1992 he was transferred to Dhekiajuli. He stated that he along

with other staff used to stay at staff quarter and during the year 1991 no

repairing work of any quarter was taken up.

20. PW-14, Filed Assistant of ICDP, Telia Gaon, Sonitpur stated that during

the relevant time he had never seen any earth filling work done by the

department.

13

21. PW-15, the then Cattle Development officer of ICDP, Tezpur stated that

he used to reside in official residence situated in the office campus and he show

some repairing works of white washing and bamboo fencing but no other work

was done. He exhibited a bunch of RCC bills as Ext.21 containing 100 nos. of

split bills for Rs.50,000/- in total pertaining to repairing of his quarter but stated

that no such repairing work was done.

22. PW-16, who was posted as VFA in June, 91 at Kolabari Vety. Sub-

center stated that in the same year in the month of September, he was

transferred to Roimari sub centre and so far he could remember no medicines

were supplied and no construction work was done.

23. PW-17, the then VFA at Jamurihat State Vety. Dispensary, stated that

during his posting therein in 1992 though some medicines were sent but no

construction and repairing work was done in the said dispensary.

24. PW-18, PW-19, PW-20 , PW-21 & PW-22 who were posted in ICDP sub

center Balijuli, RAIC, Dhekiajuli, Doloipara State Vety. Dispensary, Singimari State

Vety. Dispensary and ICDP sub-centre Rakhashmari respectively stated that

during the period 1991-92 no repairing or construction work was seen in their

office. PW-21 however stated that sometime not more than 2 /3 packets of

medicines were received in the office of the Singimari State Vety. Dispensary in

the entire year.

25. PW-26, the then UD-cum-Accountant in Birubari Office, Marketing

Centre stated that his duty was to process all the files relating to accounts in the

office. He further stated that during the period 1992 no construction or repairing

work was done in the office.

26. PW-31, the then VFA at Jongabil Sub centre at ICDP, Tezpur stated that

during the period 1991-92 he did not notice any earth filling or construction work

in the office and no medicine was received.

14

27. PW-39 who was working as Kauripathar Vety Sub centre at the relevant

time stated that during the year 1991-92 there was very little construction work

was done except for one approach road which was about 15 meter long. He

exhibited the RCC bills for Rs.75000/- for making payment of Rs.75000/- for

construction work in respect of Kauripathar Vety Sub centre.

28. PW-49, the then VFA, ICDP Sub centre Balipara which was under ICDP,

Tezpur at the relevant time has stated that in the year 1991 no construction

work was done in the Panpur sub centre and only small earth filling was done.

29. PW-50, the then VFA, Sonitpur stated that from the year 1991-96 he was

posted as VFA at Behali block, Vety. Dispensary, Jinjia and no construction work

or earth filling were done in that office during that period.

30. PW-51 who was posted in Barsola Vety. Sub centre at the relevant time

stated that in his sub centre no earth filling or major repairing work was done

during that period.

31. PW-52 who was posted in the ICDP, Mission Chariali, Tezpur as Semen

Carrier stated that during the relevant period he had not seen any vehicle

carrying medicine or medical equipments or any other article to the office.

32. From the testimonies of PW 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26,

31, 49, 50 & 51 it appeared that there was neither any sufficient supply of

medicine or articles nor there was any construction or repairing works in the

office/ official premises.

33. The following set of witnesses have proved some concerned bills

including RCC bills and handwritings/ signatures of A-1, A-2, A-4, A-5 & A-7 on

those bills. PW-35, who was an LD Assistant in ICDP, Tezpur during the relevant

period exhibited RCC bills prepared by accused Mahesh Kalita (A-1) as Ext.22 &

21. He also exhibited RCC bills prepared by accused Digendra Haloi (A-2) as

Ext.46 & 47. He also exhibited several money receipts as Ext.26 to 31, 2041,

2042 & 2043 which were prepared by accused Mahesh Kalita. PW-37 was

15

working in Govt. Live Stock Farm, Napum, Tezpur stated that he knew Mahesh

Kalita as he worked with him for 3 / 4 years. He proved Contingency Register

and Bill Register of ICDP, Tezpur as Ext.23 & 24 respectively and also proved the

relevant entries which were in the handwriting of accused Mahesh Kalita. He also

proved certain money receipts in the name of different firms which were

prepared by Mahesh Kalita (A-1) and exhibited as Ext.2045, 2056, 2047 & 2048.

In this case, two persons who were involved in the commission of the alleged

offence, namely Sh. Bhabit Ch. Mahanta and Lalit Sarma were tendered pardon

vide order dated 28.5.97 and 2.6.97 respectively and subsequently they were

examined in this case as Court Witnesses, CW-1 & CW-2 respectively. CW-1

Bhabit Ch. Mahanta whose confessional statement was recorded by competent

Judicial Magistrate, stated that at the relevant time he was an Accountant in the

office of OC, ICDP, Tezpur and J.P. Dutta was the officer in charge, Mahesh

Kalita was the Cashier and Digendra Haloi was working as LDA in that office. He

proved contingency register of his office which was maintained by him. But in his

absence this was maintained by Mahesh Kalita, Hemanta Borthakur and Digendra

Haloi. He further stated that he filled up the RCC vouchers on the direction of

the then in-charge J.P. Dutta and exhibited those RCC vouchers as Ext.8/102,

7/254, 23/18, 10/126, 11/155, 12/152, 13/201, 14, 15, 9/91, 16, 17, 18, 19, 33,

47 & 42. He also proved the sub vouchers submitted by Assam Drug House, A.B.

Distributor, Assam Pharmaceutical Distributors, M/S Drug Denus, M/S A.B.

Distributors, Pragjyotishpur Pharma Mach. He also stated that many of those

bills were prepared by accused Mahesh Kalita (A-1) and some of the entries in

the contingency register were done by him at the direction of then O/C, ICDP.

He also stated that the bills were converted to the DCR at the bank and after

encashment of the DCRs different suppliers and contractors were paid in cash in

his presence and the then O/C, J.P. Dutta gave him Rs.30000/- to give to

Mahesh Kalita. He also stated that J.P. Dutta went to the house of accused

Bhupendra Kr. Borah, the then Treasury Officer, Sonitpur and gave him

Rs.3,55,000/-.

34. The defence argued that evidence of the approvers cannot be relied upon

in absence of independent corroboration. Indeed, only on the basis of the

testimony of an approver an accused cannot be held guilty. But in this case there

16

appeared enough corroboration. In the evidence of PW 35 & 37 there appeared

enough material to show that A-1 & A-2 were actively involved in the entire

process of illegal withdrawal of money from Government exchequer. PW-35,

who was an LD Assistant in ICDP, Tezpur during the relevant period exhibited

RCC bills prepared by accused Mahesh Kalita (A-1) as Ext.22 & 21. He also

exhibited RCC bills prepared by accused Digendra Haloi (A-2) as Ext.46 & 47. He

also exhibited several money receipts as Ext.26 to 31, 2041, 2042 & 2043 which

were prepared by accused Mahesh Kalita. PW-37 who was working in Govt. Live

Stock Farm, Napum, Tezpur stated that he knew Mahesh Kalita as he worked

with him for 3 / 4 years. He proved Contingency Register and Bill Register of

ICDP, Tezpur as Ext.23 & 24 respectively and also proved the relevant entries

which were in the handwriting of accused Mahesh Kalita. He also proved certain

money receipts in the name of different firms which were prepared by Mahesh

Kalita and exhibited as Ext.2045, 2056, 2047 & 2048. PW-24 who was working

as Manager, Live Stock Farm, Napum, Tezpur stated that Mahesh Kalita was

working as Accountant in his office and since Sh. Mahesh Kalita worked under

him, he was acquainted with his signatures. He exhibited the RCC bills for the

month of March, 92 as Ext.22 and stated that all the bills which were in the

name of M/s A.B. Enterprise for RS.50,000/- were prepared by accused Mahesh

Kalita. He also exhibited Contingency Register of ICDP, Tezpur for the period

between 21.2.89 to 30.3.92 as Ext.23 and proved the entries in page no.741 as

Ext.23/1 and according to him this entry was made by accused Mahesh Kalita. He

also proved several other entries of accused Mahesh Kalita in the Cash Book and

Bill Register. He also exhibited money receipts of M/S A.B. Enterprise, M/S R.R.

Enterprise, M/S M.N. Traders, M/S M. B. Enterprise and M/S M.S. Enterprise as

Ext.26 to 30 and stated that all those money receipts were prepared in the hand

of accused Mahesh Kalita. Hence handwritings of A-1 & 2 on the concerned bills

and vouchers were proved by PW 24, PW 35 & 37.

35. Apart from A-1 & A-2, other public servants involved in the matter were

accused Bhupendra Kumar Borah (A-4), the then Treasury Officer of Sonitpur

Treasury, A-5 (Nripendra Kr Bora) & A-7 (Rajendra Prasad Sarma). PW-11,

who was serving as Treasury Officer, Tezpur during the year 1994-98 stated that

during the year 1991-92, accused Bhupendra Kr. Borah (A-4) was the Treasury

17

officer of Sonitpur Treasury. He further stated that for passing the bills for

purchase of medicines, vouchers should contain a certificate of the store keeper

and supply order and sanction order are also required. He also stated that a bill

may be passed by the Treasury officer only when the aforesaid things are in

order. He also stated that for passing a bill for construction work, the bill must

contain a certificate of the concerned engineer including the work order number,

sanction order and the details of the measurement of the construction of the

work. He also stated that construction work cannot be undertaken without

sanction of the higher authority. He exhibited an RCC bill as Ext.7 and signatures

of accused Bhupendra Kr. Borah (A-4) as Ext.7/1. He proved the accompanying

vouchers as Ext.7/2 to 7/251 which do not contain any certificate of the engineer

or the sanction order. Similarly, he exhibited another RCC bill as Ext.8 and

signature of accused Bhupendra Kr. Bora (A-4) as Ext.8/1 and also proved the

accompanying voucher as Ext.8/2 to 8/100 which do not contain and certificate

of the store keeper, supply order and sanction order. Similarly, he exhibited

several RCC bills as Ext.9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 & 19. He also proved

the signatures of accused Bhupendra Kr. Bora (A-4) on those RCC bills and also

stated that none of the accompanying vouchers contain supply order / sanction

order. He also proved a treasury voucher Ext.10 wherein the appropriation

column is not properly filled up. Payment of Rs.60,000/- was made through that

bill. On perusal of the LOC register (Ext.38) dated 11.3.92 shown as LOC for the

month of Feb,1992 and payment was shown to have been made on 11.3.92

without receipt of any LOC. He also stated that the aforesaid treasury vouchers

contain the bills of M/S Drug House and each voucher was below Rs.500/-. He

also exhibited another sub-bill pertaining to M/s Pragjyotish Pharma Mech which

do not contain any certificate regarding receipt of medicines in good condition

and also stated that the amount was never reflected in LOC Register. He also

exhibited RCC voucher as Ext.8, 42, 19, 18, 22, 12, 11, 15, 13, 17 & 9 and stated

that none of these RCC vouchers / treasury vouchers contain order no., date and

certificate. Most of the payments were made without entering into the LOC

Register for the month of Feb-Mar, 1992. During his cross-examination by

accused Bhupendra Kr. Bora (A-4), he admitted that he did not tell the CBI

officer that he was acquainted with the signatures of accused Bhupendra Kr.

Borah appearing in RCC vouchers in connection with this case. He however

18

denied the suggestion that the signatures appearing in RCC bills were not the

signatures of accused Bhupendra Kr. Borah. It was also suggested during cross-

examination that during the year 1991-92 when he was posted as Finance &

Accounts Officer in the O/O of the Commissioner, North Assam Division, Tezpur,

his pay bill was lost in Tezpur treasury and out of that grudge he was deposing

falsely against accused Bhupendra Kr. Borah. The witness however denied the

suggestion. It was also brought during cross-examination that at the time of

posting of a Treasury officer, his specimen signature is sent to the concerned

bank for payment of the bill by the bank after receipt of treasury vouchers. He

also admitted that a separate scroll is maintained in the treasury where entries

are made and the said scroll is kept inside a locked box along with the bills at the

time of despatching the bills to the bank. He exhibited one such treasury scroll

Ext A and on going through the same he stated that he did not find signature of

treasury officer in the pages of the scroll regarding release of money on 31.3.92.

During cross-examination by the remaining accused the witness admitted that he

did not know the firms of the proprietors who submitted the bills and also did not

know who received the payments. Admittedly, this witness only proved the

signatures of A-4 on the Treasury vouchers/ RCC bills and also proved the

procedure to be followed by the Treasury Officer while passing a bill.

36. PW-12 who was a Jr. Accounts Assistant in Sonitpur Treasusry, Tezpur

during 1992 stated that at that time accused Bhupendra Kr. Bora (A-4) was the

Treasury of the Sonitpur treasury and accused Nripendra Kr. Borah (A-5) was the

Accountant and accused Rajendra Prasad Sarma (A-7) was the Accounts

Assistant in Sonitpur Treasury. He also stated that all payments related to ICDP,

Tezpur are made from Sonitpur Treasury and proved Ext.20 as the concerned

Payment Subsidiary Register. He also proved the entries of vouchers of ICDP,

Tezpur made in his own hand and proved the RCC bills Ext.7 to 12 & 14 to 19.

PW-28, Sr. Accounts Assistant in the office of the Sonitpur Treasury during the

year 1991-92 exhibited the LOC Register for the period 1991-92 maintained in

their office. He further stated that during March,1992 there was no entry in

regard to LOC in the Register and entries for the period from Feb,1992 to 3.8.92

were made by accused Rajendra Pd. Sarma (A-7). PW-29, who was transferred

to Tezpur treasury in the year 1990 stated that accused Bhupendra Kr. Borah

19

was the Treasury officer during the said period and he worked with him for

about one and half year and accordingly he was acquainted with his handwriting

and signatures. He also stated that Nripendra Kr. Borah (A-5) was also working

in the Sontipur Treasury at that time. While examining himself as DW 1, A-4

Bhupendra Kumar Borah took the plea that in the month of March, 1992 when

those bills were passed he was not posted as Treasury officer of Sonitpur

Treasury. But during cross examination his plea appeared to have fallen flat.

Firstly, he stated that he did not remember as to who was the Treasury Officer of

Sonitpur Treasury at that time and secondly, he admitted that after 23 rd

September, 1991 till 24.4.1992 he had drawn his salary against the post of

Treasury Officer of Sonitpur Treasury. PW-46, Sr. Accounts Assistant of Sonitpur

Treasury during 1992 proved some treasury vouchers as Ext.8/101, 16, 42, 7,

18, 11, 22, 12, 13, 14, 15, 9, 17 & 10 and also proved the signatures of the then

Accountant of Sonitpur Treasury Nripendra Kr. Borah and the then Treasury

Officer, Sonitpur Bhupendra Kr. Borah on all those RCC bills / treasury vouchers.

In this connection let me consider the evidence adduced by A-4 Bhupendra

Kumar Borah as DW 1. He took the plea that during the relevant time he was not

the Treasury Officer of Sonitpur Treasury as he was transferred to Hamren Sub-

Treasury. But on perusal of entire evidence including his cross examination by

the Prosecution it clearly appeared that there was no believable proof that he

joined at Hamren. On the contrary, it was proved that he drew his salary for the

relevant period as Treasury Officer, Sonitpur Treasury.

37. In view of the testimonies of witnesses as discussed in the

foregoing paragraphs of this judgement it appeared that prosecution have been

able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that A-1 & 2 being public servants

employed under the office of ICDP, Tezpur were actively involved in preparation

of the aforesaid bills illegally without any LOC and even prepared money receipts

and thereby cheated the Government of Assam of more than Rupees Thirty Lacs

and their conduct also amounted to criminal misconducts within the meaning of

section 13 of the P.C.Act, 1988. It also appeared to have been proved beyond

all reasonable doubt from the evidence as discussed in foregoing paragraphs that

A-5 & A-7 were actively involved in processing of the aforesaid bills in Sonitpur

Treasury knowing fully well that there was no LOC or sanction for such payment

20

and A-4, as Treasury Officer passed those bills illegally with full knowledge that

he was passing those bills without required sanction or LOC. The plea of A-4 that

he was not posted as Treasury Officer, Sonitpur Treasury during the relevant

time did not appear to be believable at all. Rather, on the contrary, the

prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that during the period he was

posted as Treasury Officer, Sonitpur Treasury, Tezpur and passed those bills in

question illegally. A-1, A-2, A-4, A-5 & A-7 are therefore held guilty u/s 420 IPC

and u/s 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988.

38. Let me now come to the role played by the private contractors and

suppliers, namely, Amarjyoti Bezbaruah (A-8), Anup Bora (A-9), Debashish

Bezbaruah (A-10), Mukut Medhi (A-11), Utpal Medhi (A-12), Sh. Puna Das (A-

13), Ranjit Kr. Deka (A-15), Ratul Kr. Das (A-16), Nagendra Saikia (A-17), Manik

Ch. Bora (A-18), Abdul Matin (A-19), Nabaj Kalita (A-20), Gautam Saikia (A-21),

Amrijyoti Bora (A-22), Surajit Bora (A-23) & Madan Bora (A-24) who were

charged of being actively involved in the aforesaid act of cheating. They were

alleged to have submitted false bills for supply of medicine or for execution of

contract works. For the purpose of proving non supply of medicine and non

execution of any construction or repairing works, prosecution relied upon the

testimonies of PW 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 31, 39, 49, 50, 51

& 52. Their testimonies have been briefly discussed in paragraph Nos. 19 to 31

of this judgement. It appeared from their evidence that there was neither any

sufficient supply of medicine or articles nor there was any meaningful

construction/ repairing works in the premises under the control of ICDP, Tezpur.

39. In regard to A-8 to A-25, Prosecution is required to prove that they had

submitted those false bills in the names of their respective firms and received

payment illegally. Let me therefore, consider the testimonies of the following

witnesses.

40. PW-43, the then Drug Controller, Assam proved the Drug Licence

pertaining to A.B. Distributors, M/S Assam Pharmaceutical Distributors and Drug

Denus as Ext.2058, 2059 & 2060. But there was, however, no sufficient proof in

21

his testimony to show that the accused mentioned above were the proprietors

or partners of the firms in whose names the payments were drawn.

41. PW-25, proprietor of M/S Assam Pharmaceutical Distributors stated that

his firm never supplied any medicine to Vety department. But during cross

examination he stated that the bills exhibited by him as Ext.12/2 to 12/15 were

of Assam Pharmaceutical Distributors, Milanpur which is a different firm.

42. PW-32 who was posted as Fodder Development officer, ICDP, Tezpur

during the year 1991-92 stated that during that period J. P. Dutta was the O/C,

ICDP, Tezpur and Digendra Haloi was Lower Division Assistant and M. Kalita was

Cashier and Hemanta Borthakur was the Store-Keeper and Rajani Neog was

Peon. He exhibited bills /sub vouchers submitted by accused Amarjyoti Bora as

Ext.232 to 404 which were passed for payment by the then O/C, J. P. Dutta. He

also proved several other bills submitted by B.D. Enterprise, M.N. Traders, P.D.

Enterprise, S.S Enterprise, T.S. Enterprise, M.K. Enterprise, M.S. Enterprise which

were passed for payments by the then O/C, J. P. Dutta in the month of March,

92. In his examination-in-chief he also stated that Ext 231/1 & 231/2 were the

list of bills of accused Amrit Jyoti Bora (A-22). He mainly proved the bills

submitted by different firms mentioned above and also proved the signatures of

the then O/C, ICDP, Tezpur Late J.P.Dutta on those bills. However, J.P.Dutta

expired before submission of the charge sheet. So far as private contractors and

suppliers are concerned there was no specific trustworthy evidence in his

testimony that those private contractors (A-8 to A-25) were the owners or

partners of those firms or that they had prepared & submitted the bills. During

cross examination he admitted that his main duty as an Officer in ICDP, Tezpur

was in field and no file in respect of the processing of any bill are placed before

him. He also admitted that he had never dealt with the bills, sub-vouchers which

were exhibited by him. There was also no specific evidence in regard to the

relations of the firms with the accused (A-8 to A-25).

43. PW-36 who was an employee in ICDP, Lakhimpur exhibited certain

vouchers all below Rs.500/- submitted in the name of M/S N.K. Enterprise, M/S

United Enterprise, Assam Drug House, A.B. Distributors, Assam Pharmaceutical

22

Distributors, M/S Drug Denus, Pragjyotishpur Pharma and M/S M.N. Business

Syndicate. He also proved endorsement made by accused Hemanta Borthakur

(since expired) on those bills but the case had already abated against the

accused since he had expired during trial. During cross examination he stated

that he did not personally know any of the firms nor did he know as to who

submitted the sub-vouchers of exhibited RCC bills. He also admitted that he

stated the names of the firms by seeing the printed names on the sub-vouchers.

44. PW-40 who was working in the DVO office, Sonitpur, Tezpur as Divisional

Engineer stated regarding the procedure to be followed for the construction

work. According to him, after preparation of the plan estimate the same

proposal is to be approved by the higher authority and after getting the approval

the work order is to be issued as per procedure. He exhibited RCC bill as Ext.37

for the month of March, 92 pertaining to P.D. Enterprises for Rs.90,000/-. The

RCC bill was accompanied with sub vouchers Ext.55 to 229, all for Rs.500/- each

and on going through the bill he stated that there was neither any work order

nor specification of any work nor certification of completion of work issued by the

concerned engineer. He also proved another RCC bill pertaining to P.D.

Enterprises for Rs.66000/- containing sub vouchers Ext.50/11 to 50/149 and all

those were prepared without following procedure. He also proved several other

RCC bills pertaining to P.D. Enterprise, M.N. Traders, M.N. Business Syndicate,

T.S. Enterprise, Bora Enterprise and M.B. Enterprise as Ext.406 to 584, Ext.585,

Ext.1593 to 1880, Ext.51/14 to 51/171, Ext.1049 to 1248, Ext.33/8 to 33/146,

Ext.232 to 404, Ext.1393 to 1591, Ext.1890 to 2039, Ext.21/1 to 21/100,

Ext.47/9 to 47/302, Ext.47/306 to 47/599, Ext.55 to 229, Ext.2040/7 to 2040/46,

Ext.46/8 to 46/17. He further stated that Ext.33/8 to 33/146 are the bills of Bora

Enterprises dated 15.12.91 totalling to Rs.70000/- in the name of accused

Amarjyoti Bezbaruah. He also stated that the bills Ext.47/9 to 47/302 for total

amount of Rs.144657/- are in the name of accused Surajit Bora. He stated that

some of the bills were in the names of accused Amarjyoti Bezbarua (A-8) and

accused Surajit Bora (A-23). But there was nothing in his testimony to prove

beyond reasonable doubt that the bills were submitted by aforesaid two accused

after causing preparation of those bills. There was nothing in his evidence that A-

8 and/or A-23 received payments of those bills. We have already seen in

23

evidence, as discussed in foregoing paragraphs, that some money receipts were

even prepared by concerned staffs (A-1 &A-2).

45. PW-41 stated that he knew Amar Bezbaruah who wanted to help him

in business of medicine and one day Amar Bezbaruah took his signatures on an

application form for obtaining Drug Licence. But having seen bills and challans in

the name of Drug Denus he stated that he had no idea about these nor did he

submit those bills. He also stated that the money receipts in the name of Drug

Denus (Ext.2054) was also not issued by him. But there was nothing concrete in

his evidence as to who prepared and submitted those bills.

46. PW-42 stated that during the year 1991-92 he used to work in Sashi

Ayurvedc Bhawan and the proprietor of the firm was father of accused Amar

Bezbaruah. He also stated that most of the bills of the firm were prepared by

Anup Bora, Bimal Sarma, Bapdhan Das and Debashish Bezbaruah. He also

exhibited some bills of United Enterprise as Ext.7/152 to 7/250 which according

to him were prepared by accused Anup Bora in his handwriting. He also stated

that bill Ext.13/1 & 15/101 of Drug Denus was prepared and written by accused

Amar Bezbaruah and he identified his handwriting and signatures. He also stated

that Ext.2054 is the money receipt of Drug Denus For Rs.243600/- dated 9.4.92

and another money receipt as Ext.2055 of A.B. Distributors dated 9.4.92 for

Rs.72810/- and further stated that Drug Denus, A.B. Distributors and Assam

Drug House was run by Amar Bezbaruah. During cross-examination he stated

that the aforesaid bills were prepared after supply of medicines by firm and the

bills were prepared by the employees of the office and he himself prepared some

bills. So, from his cross examination it appeared that the bills referred by him

were submitted after supply of medicine and that those bills were prepared by

the employees of the office. In fact there was no proof beyond reasonable doubt

in his testimony that accused Amar Bezbarua or Debashish Bezbarua submitted

wilfully any false bill.

47. PW-44 stated that he knew Amarjyoti Bezbaruah who used to look

after the works of Sashi Ayurvedic Bhawan belonging to his father. He also

proved bill Ext.13 & 15 in the name of Drug Denus and stated that same were

24

prepared by Amarjyoti Bezbaruah. During cross-examination he stated that he

used to work at Sashi Ayrvedic Bgawa of which Janardan Bezbaruah was the

proprietor and never worked in Drug Denus. He further admitted that he never

worked with Amarjytoti Bezbaruah and did not know where and when Ext.13 &

15 were prepared and these were not prepared in his presence. On appreciation

of his entire evidence, it, therefore, appeared that there was no believable

evidence in his testimony that Ext 13 & 15 were submitted by accused Amarjyoti

Bezbarua (A-8).

48. In this case, two persons who were involved in the commissions of the

alleged offence, namely Sh. Bhabit Ch. Mahanta and Lalit Sarma were tendered

pardon vide order dated 28.5.97 and 2.6.97 respectively and subsequently

examined in this case as Court Witness, CW-1 & CW-2 respectively. CW-1 Bhabit

Ch. Mahanta whose confessional statement was recorded by competent Judicial

Magistrate, stated that at the relevant time he was an Accountant in hte office of

OC, ICDP, Tezpur and J.P. Dutta was the officer in charge. He also stated that

the then O/C, ICP, Tezpur paid Rs.2,00,000/- to Mukut Medhi against blank

money receipts and Rs.3,00,000/- to Amarjyoti Bezbaruah also against blank

money receipts. But apart from the testimony of CW 1 (approver) there was no

corroborating circumstance or direct evidence to show complicity of the accused

Amarjyoti Bezbaruah (A-8), Anup Bora (A-9), Debashish Bezbaruah (A-10),

Mukut Medhi (A-11), Utpal Medhi (A-12), Sh. Puna Das (A-13), Ranjit Kr. Deka

(A-15), Ratul Kr. Das (A-16), Nagendra Saikia (A-17), Manik Ch. Bora (A-18),

Abdul Matin (A-19), Nabaj Kalita (A-20), Gautam Saikia (A-21), Amrijyoti Bora (A-

22), Surajit Bora (A-23) & Madan Bora (A-24).

49. PW-54 who was the IO of the case stated that during the course of

investigation he had obtained specimen handwritings/signatures of various

accused persons including the accused (private contractors/ suppliers) mentioned

in para 18 of this judgement. Ext.2387 running in 6 pages and Ext.2388 in 5

pages are the specimen initials / signatures / handwritings of accused Anup Bora

(A-9). Ext.2389 running in 8 pages are the specimen initials / signatures /

handwritings of accused Debashish Bezbaruah (A-10). Ext.2390 running in 10

pages are the specimen initials / signatures / handwritings of accused Utpal

25

Medhi (A-12). Ext.2391 running in 10 pages are the specimen initials / signatures

/ handwritings of accused Nabaj Kalita (A-20). Ext.2392 running in 3 pages are

the specimen initials / signatures / handwritings of accused Ranjit Kr. Deka (A-

15). Ext.2393 running in 6 pages are the specimen initials / signatures /

handwritings of accused Puna Das (A-13). Ext.2394 running in 3 pages are the

specimen initials / signatures / handwritings of accused Nagendra Saikia (A-17).

Ext.2395 running in 3 pages are the specimen initials / signatures / handwritings

of accused Manik Ch. Borah (A-18). Ext.2396 running in 3 pages and Ext.2402 in

7 pages are the specimen initials / signatures / handwritings of accused Abdul

Matin (A-19). Ext.2397 running in 3 pages are the specimen initials /

signatures / handwritings of accused Surajit Borah (A-23). Ext.2398 running in 4

pages are the specimen initials / signatures / handwritings of accused Ratul Ch.

Das (A-16). Ext.2399 running in 6 pages are the specimen initials / signatures /

handwritings of accused Madan Bora (A-24). Ext.2400 running in 4 pages are the

specimen initials / signatures / handwritings of accused Gautam Saikia (A-21).

Ext.2401 running in 5 pages are the specimen initials / signatures / handwritings

of accused Amrijyoti Borah (A-22).

50. PW-47, the then Asstt. Questioned Document Examiner in the office of

CFSL, Chandigarh who proved the expert opinion (Ext 2080) admittedly did not

examine the documents. He simply proved the signatures of the experts who

proved the documents. In Ext 2080 the Government Questioned document

examiner opined that specimen signatures/ handwritings of accused Abdul Matin

(A-19), accused Surajit Bora (A-23) & accused Madan Bora (A-24) tallied with

some questioned documents, that is, the bills on the basis of which RCC bills

were prepared. In regard to the writings of accused Amarjyoti Bezbaruah (A-8),

Anup Bora (A-9), Debashish Bezbaruah (A-10), Mukut Medhi (A-11), Utpal Medhi

(A-12), Sh. Puna Das (A-13), Ranjit Kr. Deka (A-15), Ratul Kr. Das (A-16),

Nagendra Saikia (A-17), Manik Ch. Bora (A-18), Surajit Bora (A-23) & Madan

Bora (A-24) he could not give any opinion on the basis of the material at hand.

During his cross examination he admitted that he has no knowledge about the

contents of the expert report and opinion. He also admitted that he did not

conduct the examination of the documents and also admitted that he did not

notice reasons for opinion while deposing before this court. It was therefore

26

clear that the expert report exhibited by PW 47 could not be automatically read

into evidence and hence opinion regarding handwritings of A-19, A-23 & A-24

having tallied with some questioned documents could not be accepted in absence

of any other evidence. However, other internal or external circumstances can

also be taken into consideration for proving handwriting or signatures of a

person. In regard to handwritings of the accused Amarjyoti Bezbaruah (A-8),

Anup Bora (A-9), Debashish Bezbaruah (A-10), Mukut Medhi (A-11), Utpal Medhi

(A-12), Sh. Puna Das (A-13), Ranjit Kr. Deka (A-15), Ratul Kr. Das (A-16),

Nagendra Saikia (A-17), Manik Ch. Bora (A-18), Abdul Matin (A-19), Nabaj Kalita

(A-20), Gautam Saikia (A-21), Amrijyoti Bora (A-22), Surajit Bora (A-23) &

Madan Bora (A-24) on the relevant bills there was no specific and trustworthy

evidence that they prepared and signed those bills, as evident from the

testimonies of the witnesses, as discussed above. There were strong

circumstances against some of them in the evidence of the approvers (CW 1 & 2)

but in absence of any concrete corroboration from other witnesses, the aforesaid

accused, namely, Amarjyoti Bezbaruah (A-8), Anup Bora (A-9), Debashish

Bezbaruah (A-10), Mukut Medhi (A-11), Utpal Medhi (A-12), Sh. Puna Das (A-

13), Ranjit Kr. Deka (A-15), Ratul Kr. Das (A-16), Nagendra Saikia (A-17), Manik

Ch. Bora (A-18), Abdul Matin (A-19), Nabaj Kalita (A-20), Gautam Saikia (A-21),

Amrijyoti Bora (A-22), Surajit Bora (A-23) & Madan Bora (A-24) cannot be held

guilty and hence they are acquitted of all charges.

51. In view of the above it is held that prosecution has been able to prove

beyond all reasonable doubt that accused Mahesh Kalita (A-1), Digendra Haloi

(A-2), Bhupendra Kumar Borah (A-4), Nripendra Kumar Borah (A-5) and

Rajendra Pd Sarma (A-7) are guilty u/s 420 IPC and u/s 13(1)(d) read with

section 13(2) of the P.C.Act, 1988. They are accordingly convicted u/s 420 IPC

and u/s 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the P.C.Act, 1988. They are however,

held not guilty u/s 120B IPC in absence of enough material of criminal conspiracy

against them.

52. Heard the accused on the question of sentence. They pleaded for

leniency on the ground of protracted trial and advancing age. I have also heard

Ld PP, CBI, Mr. Neeraj Kumar who has submitted that since the convicts are

27

public servants they may not be treated leniently. Learned lawyers for the

convicts pleaded for minimum sentence. Having considered the circumstances

and the submissions of the learned lawyers of both sides, I sentence the accused

as under. Accused, namely, Mahesh Kalita (A-1), Digendra Haloi (A-2),

Bhupendra Kumar Borah (A-4), Nripendra Kumar Borah (A-5) and Rajendra Pd

Sarma (A-7) are sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and fine of

Rs.25000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further imprisonment for 3

months u/s 420 IPC. They are also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 2

years and fine of Rs.50000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further

imprisonment for 6 months u/s 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C.Act, 1988.

Period of imprisonment, if any, undergone by them in connection with this case

shall be set off as per provision of section 428 CrPc.

53. Furnish copies of this judgement to the convicted accused free of cost

immediately.

Given under the hand and seal of this court on this 10th day of November,

2016.

Special Judge

CBI Court, Assam

Guwahati

28

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE, CBI, ASSAM, GUWAHATI

SPL. CASE NO. 55/2004


-Vs-

Sh. Mahesh Kalita & Ors

List of Prosecution Witnesses

Sl. No. Witness No. Name of the Witness

1. PW-1 Sh. S.C. Das

2. PW-2 Sh. Naba Kumar Chetia

3. PW-3 Sh. Haren Kakoti

4. PW-4 Sh. Ramani Kanta Deka

5. PW-5 Sh. Taranath Gogoi

6. PW-6 Sh. Debu Bhandar Kayastha

7. PW-7 Sh. Bisheswar Saikia

8. PW-8 Sh. Krishnakanta Nath

9. PW-9 Sh. Debabrata Gogoi

10. PW-10 Smti. Dipali Saikia

11. PW-11 Sh. Tarun Chandra Borthakur

12. PW-12 Sh. Buddha Kumar Borah

13. PW-13 Sh. Monu Bahadur Chetri

14. PW-14 Sh. Dilip Talukdar

15. PW-15 Sh. J.N. Borah

16. PW-16 Sh. Joy Kumar Sutar

29

17. PW-17 Sh. Durlav Chandra Ozha

18. PW-18 Md. Nuruddin Ahmed

19. PW-19 Sh. Digambar Kalita

20. PW-20 Sh. Rudra Kanta Hazarika

21. PW-21 Sh. Krishna Kamal Sarmah

22. PW-22 Md. Nazrul Islam

23 PW-23 Sh. Binoy Lochan Barooah

24 PW-24 Dr. Biraj Kumar Saikia

25 PW-25 Sh. Munindra Narayan Chakraborty

26 PW-26 Sh. Bhupen Ch. Das

27 PW-27 Sh. Narendra Nath Barman

28 PW-28 Sh. Chandra Kanta Neog

29 PW-29 Sh. Mukul Deka

30 PW-30 Dr. Rajani Handique

31 PW-31 Sh. Nur Mohammad Choudhary

32 PW-32 Sh. Ganesh Kumar Saikia

33. PW-33 Sh. Dwijen Nath

34 PW-34 Sh. Bhabananda Das

35 PW-35 Mrs. Eli Hazarika

36 PW-36 Md. Monowar Hussain

37 PW-37 Sh. Ranjan Kumar Bhuyan

38 PW-38 Md. Baharul Islam

39 PW-39 Sh. Kuladhar Borah

40 PW-40 Sh. Motilal Bayan

41 PW-41 Sh. Tapan Sharma

42 PW-42 Dr. Saurabh Sarma

43 PW-43 Sh. Prasad Chandra Basumatary

44 PW-44 Sh. Pitambar Malakar

45 PW-45 Sh. Sarat Gohain

30

46 PW-46 Sh. Mohan Chandra Borah

47 CW-1 Sh. Bhabit Chandra Mahanta

48 CW-2 Sh. Lalit Sharma

49 PW-47 Sh. Abhimanyu Kumar

50 PW-48 Sh. Bhumidhar Nath

51 PW-49 Sh. Krishna Ballav Hazarika

52 PW-50 Sh. Jiban Bhumiz

53 PW-51 Sh. Nipal Das

54 PW-52 Sh. Sunil Mahanta

55 PW-53 Dr. Kandarpa Kumar Deka

56 PW-54 Sh. B. Kerketta

List of Defence Witness

Sl. No. Witness No. Name of the Witness

1. DW-1 Sh. Bhupendra Kumar Borah

Special Judge, CBI

Assam, Guwahati

31

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE, CBI, ASSAM, GUWAHATI

SPL. CASE NO. 55/2004


-Vs-

Sh. Mahesh Kalita & Ors

List of Prosecution Documents :

Sl. No.

Exhibit No. Nature of Documents

1 Ext. 1 Prosecution Sanction Order

2 Ext. 1/1 to Ext. 1/5 Signatures of PW-1


4 Ext. 2/1 Signatures of PW-2


6 Ext. 3/1 to 3/12 Signatures of PW-3

7 Ext. 4 LOC Register

8 Ext. 4/1 Relevant Entry in the LOC Register

9 Ext. 5 Copy of the LOC

10 Ext. 5/1 Signatures of Sh. T.N. Gogoi (PW-5)

11 Ext. 5/2 Signatures of PW-4

12 Ext. 6 LOC Register

13 Ext. 6/1 Relevant entry in the LOC Register

14 Ext. 6(A) Certificate

15 Ext. 7 RCC Bill

32

16 Ext. 7/1 Signatures of Bhupendra Kr. Borah (A-4)

17 Ext. 7/2 to 7/251 Vouchers

18 Ext. 7/2/1 to 7/251/1 Signatures of J.P. Dutta

19 Ext. 7/254 RCC Bill prepared by CW-1

20 Ext. 7/255 to 7/257 Signatures of J.P. Dutta

21 Ext. 7/258 Authority Letter

22 Ext. 7/258/1 & 7/258/2 Signatures of J.P. Dutta

23 Ext. 7/258/3 Signature of Rajani Neog

24 Ext. 7/259 List of Bills

25 Ext. 7/259/1 Signature of J.P. Dutta

26 Ext. 7/259/2 Entry made by Hemanta Borthakur

27 Ext. 7/2/2 to 7/250/2 Entries made by Hemanta Borthakur

28 Ext. 7/252, 8/101,9/81,10/126

Original RCC Bills

29 Ext. 7/253, 8/102, 9/82, 10/127

Signature of Bhupendra Kr. Borah (A-4)

30 Ext. 7/260 Signature of Nripendra Kr. Bora

31 Ext. 8 RCC Bill



34 Ext. 8/101 RCC Bill


36 Ext. 8/102 Signature of Bhupendra Bora




40 Ext. 9 RCC Bill

41 Ext. 9/1 Signatures of Bhupendra Kr. Borah (A-

33

4)



44 Ext. 9/82 Signature of Bhupendra Kr. Bora

45 Ext. 9/91 RCC Voucher


47 Ext. 9/105 List of Bills/ Sub Vouchers

48 Ext. 9/106 & 9/107 Signatures of J.P. Dutta

49 Ext. 9/108 Letter




53 Ext. 9/2/2 to 9/80/2 Endorsement made by Hemanta Borthakur

54 Ext. 10 RCC Bill











65 Ext. 11 RCC Bill



34




71 Ext. 11/162 Slip or Bill abstract

72 Ext. 11/163 Signature of J.P. Dutta

73 Ext. 11/164 List of Bill amount




77 Ext. 11/167 Entry made by Hemanta Borthakur


79 Ext. 11/169 Initial of J.P. Dutta

80 Ext. 12 RCC Bill






86 Ext. 12/156 Sub-Voucher




90 Ext. 12/160 Signature of Rajani Neog

91 Ext. 13 RCC Bill


93 Ext. 13(201) RCC Bill


35




98 Ext. 13/1/3 Handwriting of Amar Bezbaruah

99 Ext. 14 RCC Bill

100 Ext. 14/1 Signature of Bhupendra Kr. Borah (A-4)






106 Ext. 14/102/3 Handwriting of Amarjyoti Bezbaruah

107 Ext. 15 RCC Bill





112 Ext. 15/206/1 & 15/206/2 Signatures of Rajani Neog




116 Ext. 15(101)3 Handwriting of Amarjyoti Bezbaruah






36

122 Ext. 16/182 & 16/183 Entries







129 Ext. 17/206, 17/207, 17/208 Entries




133 Ext. 17/215 List of Sub-vouchers




137 Ext. 17/218 Endorsement made by Hemanta Borthakur


139 Ext. 17/i & 17/ii Signatures of Rajani Neog





144 Ext. 18/242, 18/243, 18/244 Entries





37




152 Ext. 19/202, 19/204 Entries




156 Ext. 20 Payment Subsidiary Register

157 Ext. 20/1 to 20/20 Relevant entries

158 Document marked-‘X’ Statement of PW-12 made before I/O

159 Document marked-‘X/1’ Relevant portion of the statement

160 Document marked-‘X’ RCC Bills

161 Ext. 21 Bunch of RCC Bills

162 Ext. 21/1 to 21/100 Split Bills

163 Ext. 21/101 & 21/102 Signatures of Dr. J.P. Dutta

164 Ext. 21/103 to 21/200 Signatures of Dr. J.P. Dutta



167 Ext. 21/204 List of Vouchers


169 Ext. 21/207 to 21/209 Handwritings of Mahesh Kalita

170 Document marked-‘X’ Seizure Memo

171 Document marked-‘X/1’ Signature of PW-23

172 Ext. 22 RCC Bills

173 Ext. 22/1 Statement/extract

174 Ext. 22/2 to 22/102 Split Bills



38




180 Ext. 23 Contingency Register

181 Ext. 23/1, 23/14 Relevant entry made by Mahesh Kalita

182 Ext. 23/2 to 23/8 Entries

183 Ext. 23/9 Relevant entry made by Mahesh Kalita



186 Ext. 23/10 & 23/13 Relevant entries made by Digendra Haloi


188 Ext. 23/11 Relevant entry


190 Ext. 23/12 Certificate



193 Ext. 23/38, 23/39, 23/42 Relevant entry

194 Ext. 23/40, 23/41, 23/43 Signatures of J.P. Dutta

195 Ext. 24 Bill Register




199 Ext. 24/8 Handwriting of Mahesh Kalita






39


206 Ext. 24/15 Entry made by Hemanta Borthakur

207 Ext. 24/16, 24/17, 24/18, 24/19, 24/20, 24/21, 24/22, 24/23, 24/24, 24/25, 24/26, 24/27

Relevant entry


209 Ext. 25 Cash Book

210 Ext. 25/1 Certification

211 Ext. 25/2 to 25/9 Relevant pages of the Cash Book


213 Ext. 26 to 31 Money Receipts


215 Ext. 32 Money receipt

216 Ext. 32/1 Signature

217 Ext. 33 to 37 RCC Bills


219 Ext. 15/202, 13/201, 12/152, 14/102, 11/155, 10/126, 7/253, 9/98, 8/102

Entries




223 Ext. 33/8 to 33/146 Sub-vouchers



226 Ext. 35/2, 35/3, 35/5 Entries

227 Ext. 35/4, 35/6 Handwritings of Lalit Sarma

228 Ext. 35/7, 35/8 Signatures of J.P. Dutta


40




233 Ext. 38 LOC register


235 Ext. 38/A and 38/B Entries

236 Ext. 39 to 50 RCC Bills

237 Ext. 39/1 to 50/1 Signatures of Treasury Officer

















254 Ext. 46/2 to 46/4 Handwritings of Diganta Haloi


256 Ext. 46/8 to 46/70 Bills in the name of Luit Enterprise


258 Ext. 46/8/2 to 46/70/2 Endorsement made by Digen Haloi

41



261 Ext. 47/9 to 47/302 Bills in the name of Surajit Borah


263 Ext. 47/I & 47/ii Signatures of Rajani Neog












275 Ext. 50/5/1 & 51/8/1 Signatures of Rajani Neog


277 Ext. 51/1, 51/2 Entries








285 Ext. 52 RCC Bills



42

288 Ext. 53 List of Bills


290 Ext. 54 Authority Letter


292 Ext. 55 to 229 Bills in the name of P.D. Enterprise




296 Ext. 230/4 & 230/5 Signatures of Rajani Neog

297 Ext. 231 List of Bills/ Sub- Vouchers


299 Ext. 232 to 404 Bills/Sub-Vouchers



302 Ext. 405/1 Signatures of J.P. Dutta

303 Ext. 406 to 584 Bills/ Sub-Vouchers










313 Ext. 886 Authority letter



316 Ext. 887 Bills/ Sub-Vouchers

43




320 Ext. 1048 List of Sub-Vouchers

321 Ext. 1048/1 Signatures of J.P. Dutta

322 Ext. 1049 to 1248 Sub-Vouchers




326 Ext. 1249/2 to 1334/2 Handwritings of Hemanta Borthakur

327 Ext. 1336/2 to 1392/2 Handwritings of Hemanta Borthakur

328 Ext. 1393 to 1591 Sub-Vouchers






334 Ext. 1593/2 to 1880/2 Endorsement made by Hemanta Borthakur



337 Ext. 1881/3 & 1881/4 Signature of Rajani Neog

338 Ext. 1882 Treasury Challan





343 Ext. 1884 List of Vouchers


44




348 Ext. 1885/3 & 1885/4 Signature of Rajani Neog


350 Ext. 1886/1 & 1886/2 Signatures of Rajani Neog














364 Ext. 2040/7 to 2040/46 Bills in the name of Trinayan Enterprise



367 Ext. 2040/50 to 2040/51 Signatures of Rajani Neog

368 Ext. 2041 to 2043 Money receipts


370 Ext. 2044 Transit register



45

373 Ext. 2044/6, 2044/7, 2044/9, 2044/12, 2044/14

Relevant entry

374 Ext. 2044/8, 2044/10, 2044/11, 2044/13

Signature of J.P. Dutta

375 Ext. 2045 to 2051 Money Receipts

376 Ext. 2052 & 2053 Seizure Memo

377 Ext. 2052/1 & 2053/1 Signatures of PW-38


379 Ext. 2053/2 Signature of PW-54

380 Ext. 2054 to 2056 Money receipts

381 Ext. 2057 Drug License File

382 Ext. 2057/1, 2057/3 & 2057/4

License

383 Ext. 2057/2, 2057/5 & 2057/6

Signature of Drug Controller


385 Ext. 2058/1 Forwarding Letter

386 Ext. 2058/2 Signature of Drug Controller

387 Ext. 2058/3 Renewal of Drug License





392 Ext. 2059/1 Endorsement Letter





397 Ext. 2060/1 Endorsement Letter



46

400 Ext. 2061 File

401 Ext. 2061/1 to 2061/3 Bills Scrutiny Sheet

402 Ext. 2062 Forwarding Letter

403 Ext. 2063 List of Construction Works

404 Ext. 2063/1 Signature of the O/C, ICDP, Dr. Raj Konwar

405 Ext. 2064 Statement

406 Ext. 2064/1 Name of PW-40

407 Ext. 2065 & 2066 Money Receipts

408 Ext. 2067 Signature of CW-1

409 Ext. 2068 Certified copy of the confessional statement of CW-1

410 Ext. 2068/1 to 2068/10 Statements of CW-1

411 Ext. 2069 & 2070 Money Receipts




415 Ext. 2070/3 & 2070/4 Signatures of CW-1

416 Ext. 2071 Confessional statement of CW-2

417 Ext. 2071/1 to 2071/6 Signatures of CW-2

418 Ext. 2072 Signature of CW-2

419 Ext. 2073 Specimen handwritings/signatures of CW-2

420 Ext. 2073/1 & 2073/2 Signatures of CW-2

421 Ext. 2074 Specimen handwriting & signatures sheets of Digendra Haloi

422 Ext. 2074/1 to 2074/13 Signatures of Digendra Haloi

423 Ext. 2075 Specimen handwriting & signatures sheets of Mahesh Kalita

424 Ext. 2075/1 to 2075/5 Signatures of Mahesh Kalita

47

425 Ext. 2076 Specimen handwriting & signatures of CW-2

426 Ext. 2076/1 to 2076/5 Signatures of CW-2


428 Ext. 2077 Specimen handwriting & signatures sheets of Mahesh Kalita

429 Ext. 2077/1 to 2077/10 Signatures of Mahesh Kalita


431 Ext. 2078 Specimen handwriting & signatures sheets of Digendra Haloi

432 Ext. 2078/1 to 2078/17 Signatures of Digendra Haloi



435 Ext. 2079/1 Signature of GEQD

436 Ext. 2080 Opinion of GEQD

437 Ext. 2080/1 & 2080/2 Signatures of Mr. H.M. Saxena

438 Ext. 2080/3 & 2080/4 Signatures of R.K. Jain, Dy. GEQD



441 Ext. 2081/2 Signatures of R.K. Jain, Dy. GEQD

442 Ext. 2082 Supplementary opinion

443 Ext. 2082/1 to 2082/4 Signatures of Mr. H.M. Saxena

444 Ext. 2082/5 to 2082/8 Signatures of R.K. Jain, Dy. GEQD

445 Ext. 2083 Letter

446 Ext. 2083/1 Signatures of R.K. Jain, Dy. GEQD

447 Ext. 2084 to 2172 Split Bills


449 Ext. 2173 to 2226 Bills


451 Ext. 2227 to 2284 Bills

48


453 Ext. 2285 to 2351 Bills


455 Ext. 2352, 2353 Money receipts

456 Ext. 2354 & 2355 Seizure Memos

457 Ext. 2354/1, 2355/1 & 2355/2

Signatures of PW-53



460

461 Ext. 2357 FIR

462 Ext. 2357/1 Signature of the then SP, CBI/ACU-I, New Delhi

463 Ext. 2358 to 2361 Seizure Memos


465 Ext. 2358/2, 2359/2, 2359/3, 2360/2, 2360/3, 2361/2, 2361/3

Signatures

466 Ext. 2362 to 2380 Seizure memos


468 Ext. 2362/2, 2363/2, 2364/2, 2364/3, 2365/2, 2366/2, 2366/3, 2367/2, 2368/2, 2368/3, 2369/2, 2369/3, 2370/2, 2370/3, 2371/2, 2371/3, 2372/2, 2372/3, 2373/2, 2373/3, 2374/2, 2374/3, 2375/2, 2376/2, 2376/3

Signatures

469 Ext. 2378 & 2379 Seizure memos

470 Ext. 2378/1, 2379/1, 2378/2, 2379/2

Signatures

471 Ext. 2380 Seizure memo


49

473 Ext. 2380/2, 2380/3 Signatures

474 Ext. 2381 Letter


476 Ext. 2382 Specimen handwriting

477 Ext. 2382/1 to 2382/16 Signatures




481 Ext. 2384 Specimen initial/signatures/handwritings of Bhupendra Kr. Bora

482 Ext. 2384/1 to 2384/11 Signatures of Bhupendra Kr. Bora

483 Ext. 2384/12 to 2384/22 Signatures of Joykanta Kalita, witness


485 Ext. 2385 Specimen initial/signatures/handwritings of Nripendra Kr. Bora

486 Ext. 2385/1 to 2385/32 Signatures of Sankar Sarma

487 Ext. 2385/33 to 2385/64 Signatures of Nripendra Kr. Bora

488 Ext. 2386 Specimen initial/signatures/handwritings of Jiban Borkotoky

489 Ext. 2386/1 to 2386/11 Signatures of Sankar Sarma

490 Ext. 2386/12 to 2386/22 Signatures of Jiban Borkotoky

491 Ext. 2387 Specimen initial/signatures/handwritings of Anup Bora

492 Ext. 2387/1 to 2387/6 Signatures of Narendra Nath Barman

493 Ext. 2387/7 to 2387/12 Signatures of Anup Bora


495 Ext. 2388 Specimen

50

initial/signatures/handwritings of Anup Bora

496 Ext. 2388/1 to 2388/5 Signatures of Bhabani Deka

497 Ext. 2388/6 to 2388/10 Signatures of Anup Bora


499 Ext. 2389 Specimen initial/signatures/handwritings of Debashish Bezbaruah

500 Ext. 2389/1 to 2389/8 Signatures of Bhabani Deka

501 Ext. 2389/9 to 2389/16 Signatures of Debashish Bezbaruah


503 Ext. 2390 Specimen initial/signatures/handwritings of Utpal Medhi

504 Ext. 2390/1 to 2390/10 Signatures of Narendra Nath Barman

505 Ext. 2390/11 to 2390/20 Signatures of Utpal Medhi


507 Ext. 2391 Specimen initial/signatures/handwritings of Nabaj Kr. Kalita

508 Ext. 2391/1 to 2391/4 Signatures of Tarun Ch. Borthakur

509 Ext. 2391/5 to 2391/8 Signatures of Nabaj Kr. Kalita


511 Ext. 2392 Specimen initial/signatures/handwritings of Ranjit Kr. Deka

512 Ext. 2392/1 to 2392/3 Signatures of Dhiren Ch. Kakaty

513 Ext. 2392/4 to 2392/6 Signatures of Ranjit Kr. Deka


515 Ext. 2393 Specimen initial/signatures/handwritings of Puna Das


51

517 Ext. 2393/7 to 2393/12 Signatures of Puna Das


519 Ext. 2394 Specimen initial/signatures/handwritings of Nagendra Saikia


521 Ext. 2394/4 to 2394/6 Signatures of Nagendra Saikia


523 Ext. 2395 Specimen initial/signatures/handwritings of Manik Ch. Bora


525 Ext. 2395/4 to 2395/6 Signatures of Manik Ch. Bora


527 Ext. 2396 Specimen initial/signatures/handwritings of Abdul Matin


529 Ext. 2396/4 to 2396/6 Signatures of Abdul Matin


531 Ext. 2397 Specimen initial/signatures/handwritings of Surajit Bora

532 Ext. 2397/1 to 2397/3 Signatures of Manoj Kr. Goswami

533 Ext. 2397/4 to 2397/6 Signatures of Surajit Bora


535 Ext. 2398 Specimen initial/signatures/handwritings of Ratul Ch. Das

536 Ext. 2398/1 to 2398/4 Signatures of Nipen Dutta

537 Ext. 2398/5 to 2398/8 Signatures of Ratul Ch. Dutta


539 Ext. 2399 Specimen

52

initial/signatures/handwritings of Madan Bora

540 Ext. 2399/1 to 2399/6 Signatures of Sapan Kr. Medhi

541 Ext. 2399/7 to 2399/12 Signatures of Madan Bora

542 Ext. 2399/13 to 2399/18 Signatures of Suman Kumar, the then Inspector of CBI, ACU-I, New Delhi

543 Ext. 2400 Specimen initial/signatures/handwritings of Gautam Saikia

544 Ext. 2400/1 to 2400/4 Signatures of K. Deka

545 Ext. 2400/5 to 2400/8 Signatures of Gautam Saikia

546 Ext. 2400/9 to 2400/12 Signatures of Suman Kumar, the then Inspector of CBI, ACU-I, New Delhi

547 Ext. 2401 Specimen initial/signatures/handwritings of Amrit Jyoti Bora

548 Ext. 2401/1 to 2401/5 Signatures of Dr. Manoj Kr. Goswami

549 Ext. 2401/6 to 2401/10 Signatures of Amrit Jyoti Bora


551 Ext. 2402 Specimen initial/signatures/handwritings of Abdul Matin

552 Ext. 2402/1 to 2402/7 Signatures of Dr. Dhiren Ch. Kakaty

553 Ext. 2402/8 to 2402/14 Signatures of Abdul Matin


555 Ext.2403

556 Ext.2403/1 to 2403/5 Signatures of C. Mahanta

557 Ext.2403/6 to 2403/10 Signatures of R. Singh

558 Ext.2404

559 Ext.2404/1 to 2404/11 Signatures of R. Singh

560 Ext.2405 Chargesheet

561 Ext.2405/1 to 2405/2 Signatures of Basil Kerketta

53

562 Ext.2406 F.I.R.

563 Ext.2407 Complaint

564 Ext.2408 to 2410 161 Cr. P.C. statements of witnesses

565 Ext.2408/1 to 2410/1 Signatures of Basil Kerketta.

List of Defence Exhibits :

Sl. No. Exhibit No. Nature of Documents

1 Ext. A Treasury Scroll

2 Ext. B Letter

3 Ext. B/1 & B/2 Signatrues of B. R. Deori

4 Ext. C Letter

5 Ext. C/1 & C/2 Signatures of G. Talukdar

6 Ext. D W.T. message

7 Ext. E Letter

8 Ext. F Order

9 Ext. G Order

Special Judge, CBI

Assam, Guwahati

Date post:	25-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times