1

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

Special Case No. 12/2009Present:- Sri M.K. Bhattacharjee

Special Judge, CBI, Assam, Guwahati.

State (C.B.I.)

-Versus-

Sh. Diganta Chakroborty …….. Accused.

Appearance for the C.B.I. : Sh. A. Bhattacharjee,

Ld. Special Counsel, CBI

Appearance for the Accused Person: Sri P. Kataky,

Smti. Archana Deka Lahkar,

Sri A.K. Paul, Ld. advocates

Dates of recording Prosecution Evidence: 27.11.2012,

30.01.2013, 18.02.2013, 09.04.2013, 16.05.2013,

24.06.2013, 29.07.2013, 16.08.2013, 09.09.2013,

01.11.2013, 18.02.2014, 13.03.2014, 14.03.2014,

31.03.2014, 28.04.2014, 29.04.2014, 15.05.2014,

16.05.2014, 17.05.2014, 10.07.2014, 22.09.2014,

06.06.2014, 09.07.2014, 24.07.2014.

Dates of recording Defence Evidence: 01.12.2014, 03.12.2014,

25.02.2015, 11.03.2015,

2

Argument heard on : 21.04.2015, 27.04.2015, 06.05.2015,

30.05.2015, 06.06.2015, 08.06.2015

Date of Judgment : 30.6.2015

J U D G M E N T

On 10.6.2009 SP, CBI, ACB, Guwahati recorded an

information to the effect that one Smti Bani Chakroborty, W/O Sri

Diganta Chakroborty, while posted as Primary School Teacher in

Kendriya Vidyalaya No.1, Tezpur, had acquired huge assets being

abetted by her husband who was Branch Manager of UCO Bank,

Tezpur Branch. The assets comprised of moveable as well as

immovable property acquired in own name and the name of

family members. Disproportionate asset to all known source of

income was stated to be Rs.21,79035/- in the FIR (Ext 170). On

receipt of the above information, case No. RC- 9(A)/2009 was

registered against Bani Chakroborty and Diganta Chakroborty u/s

13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the P.C Act.

2. During investigation the I/O recorded the statement of

Smti. Bani Chakraborty u/s 161 Cr.PC wherein she stated that she

was a teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya and the fixed deposits in her

name in State Bank of India and other banks were actually

arranged and managed by her husband Sri Diganta Chakraborty,

who was an officer of UCO bank, and she had only put her

signature in the opening form and she had no knowledge about

the amount of investment. The I/O also filed a prayer before the

3

Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guwahati for recording the

statement of accused Sri Diganta Chakraborty u/s 164 Cr.PC.

However, statement of Sri Diganta Chakraborty, which was

recorded by a Ld. Judicial Magistrate, appears to have been

recorded on oath in a format as if this was a statement of a

witness u/s 164 Cr.PC. In this statement u/s 164 Cr.PC, Sri

Diganta Chakraborty admitted that his wife Smti. Bani

Chakraborty had no knowledge as to how and from where fund

for the fixed deposits were arranged. He further stated that it was

he who arranged the funds for fixed deposits.

3. Investigation further revealed that total net salary of

Smti. Bani Chakraborty during the check period i.e. from the

01.04.1995 to 31.03.2006 was Rs. 8,99,513/-. During check

period take home salary of Sri Diganta Chakraborty was calculated

by the Investigating Officer to be Rs. 13,81,675/-. It was however,

revealed during the investigation that at the commencement of

the check period asset of accused and his wife was Rs.586926/-.

During search and seizure in the premises of the accused, several

documents of property/ bank deposits and bills towards purchase

of house hold articles were recovered and seized. In the charge

sheet the I/O annexed 4 statements showing assets of Sri Diganta

Chakraborty and his family members at the beginning of the

check period, at the close of the check period, income during the

check period and the expenditure during the check period.

4

4. After concluding the investigation, the I/O submitted

charge sheet against accused Sri Diganta Chakraborty for

possessing disproportionate assets in his name and in the name

of his family members including his wife. Smti Bani Chakraborty

was cited as a witness. But before she could be examined in the

Court she expired.

5. On consideration of the materials submitted by the I/O

u/s 173 Cr.PC and on hearing Ld. Lawyers of both the sides my

Ld. Predecessor charged accused Diganta Chakraborty u/s 13(2)

read with Section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

for possessing disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.

27,23,848/-.

6. Prosecution examined 43 witnesses and thereafter the

accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.PC wherein he stated that

assets in the name of his wife Smti Bani Chakraborty belonged to

her and he could not explain for those. Defence examined 5

witnesses who were duly cross-examined by the prosecution. I

have heard argument from the ld. Lawyers of both sides and have

perused the evidence on record. Both sides have also submitted

written memorandum of argument which are kept with the case

record.

POINTS FOR DETERMINATION:

1. Whether during the check period the accused amassed

assets disproportionate to his known sources of income in his

name and in the name of his family members?

5

DECISIONS AND REASONS THEREOF:

7. While arguing the case ld. Spl. PP for CBI Mr. A.

Bhattacharjee submitted that the prosecution had proved the

income of the accused and his wife as well as their approximate

expenditure during the check period and it was proved beyond all

reasonable doubt that during the check period i.e. between 1st

April, 1995 to 31st March, 2006, the total income of the accused

and his wife including the salary and loan taken from various

financial institutions stood at Rs. 34,87,578/- and the total

expenditure during the period was Rs. 17,14,638/-. He further

submitted that even if the income of the accused and his wife

were taken together, after deduction of approximate expenditure

during the aforesaid period, the assets possessed by the accused

in his own name and in the name of his wife would be 78%

higher than the known source of their joint income. Referring to

the statement given by the accused Sri Diganta Chakraborty

before the ld. Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, ld. Spl. PP for CBI

submitted that though the statement given by the accused could

not be construed as Judicial confession but there was no bar in

considering the said statement as an extra judicial admission

wherein he admitted that the fund of the fixed deposits in the

name of his wife was arranged by him. He also submitted that as

per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Agnihotri Vs State of

M.P. AIR, 1977 SC 796, the maximum margin of limit in

disproportionate assets case may be taken as 20%. Learned Spl.

PP further submitted that in the present case the total amount of

6

disproportionate asset is 78% which is much above the laid down

norm of 20%. He further submitted that the known source of

income in Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, 1988 does not mean

any income which may be known to the accused alone, but

includes only that income which is known or reported to the

authority of the concerned public servant.

8. Learned defence lawyer, on the other hand, submitted

that the I/O had intentionally kept the check period confined upto

31.03.2006 although the investigation commenced in 2009. It was

further submitted that the I/O had done so to ignore a loan of Rs.

22,00,000/- which the wife of the accused took on 09.08.2006

from bank and such loan was repaid on 04.07.2008 by exhausting

23 numbers of fixed deposits. It was further submitted that if the

check period had extended beyond 31.3.2006, the face value of

the fixed deposits would have been only Rs. 5,81,600/-. He

further submitted that it would amount to injustice to the accused

if he was expected to explain for the assets belonging to his wife.

It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to show that

the accused Sri Diganta Chakraborty was the real owner and

possessor of the assets as the assets apparently stood in the

name of his wife. It is further submitted that statement of

accused Sri Diganta Chakraborty recorded by the Judicial

Magistrate on oath u/s 164 Cr.PC in the format of recording of

statement of witnesses cannot be considered as the confessional

statement because the statement was neither recorded as a

confessional statement nor the concerned Judicial Magistrate

complied with the mandatory procedure/ rules/ law required to be

7

followed in case of recording of a confessional statement.

Referring to the testimony of DW-5, learned defence lawyer

submitted that the I/O had made gross mistake in calculation of

the total income of the accused and completely ignored the cash

flow as well as the interest earned by accused through various

deposits in banks. Ld. Lawyer for the accused submitted that

since the wife of the accused was herself a Central Government

employee and the fixed deposits were in her name the

prosecution ought to have asked her to explain for the same. He

further submitted that since the wife of the accused herself was a

Central Government employee it could not be presumed that the

assets, property and the fixed deposits standing in her name

belonged to accused Sri Diganta Chakraborty.

9. Several witnesses namely, PW- 3, 5, 23 and 32 proved

the assets which the accused acquired either in his own name or

in the name of his family members including his wife. These asset

comprised of fixed deposits in banks, deposit made in PPF

account, price of car etc. Ext 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 22,

24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52, 54, 55,

56, 66, 100, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139,

140, 141, 142, 143, 144 and 145 are these documents.

10. Let me now find out the known source and quantum

of income of accused and his wife from the evidence on record.

Prosecution examined two witnesses namely, PW-4 and 38 to

show the known source and amount of income of the accused

Diganta Chakroborty during the check period. From the evidence

of the aforesaid witnesses and the documents proved by them

8

namely, Ext- 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65 and 168, it appeared that

during the check period i.e. from the April, 1995 to March, 2006,

Sri Diganta Chakraborty received net salary of Rs. 13,58,429/-

from his employer UCO bank, after deduction.

11. Wife of Sri Diganta Chakrraborty, Smti. Bani

Chakraborty was admittedly a teacher in the Kendriya Vidyalaya

which was proved by PW-2, a retired Deputy Commissioner of

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. According to PW-21, from July,

1991 to December, 1999, Smti. Bani Chakraborty was a teacher of

Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 2 AAF, Tezpur. PW-22 proved the salary

received by Smti. Bani Chakraborty as a teacher of Kendriya

Vidyalaya. PW- 21 and 22 proved the relevant records of

disbursement of salaries of Smti Bani Chakraborty at the relevant

time by exhibiting certain documents which were exhibited as Ext-

92, 93, 95 and 96. On perusal of the relevant documents

exhibited in the case by prosecution, it appeared that during the

check period i.e. from the April, 1995 to March, 2006, Smti. Bani

Chakraborty received total net salary of Rs. 8,99,513/-.

12. On perusal of record, it appeared that Sri Diganta

Chakraborty took loan of Rs. 3,00,000/-, Rs. 52,000/-, Rs.

2,00,000/-, Rs. 90,000/-, Rs. 45,000/- and Rs. 2,70,000/- from

UCO Bank and ICICI Bank during the check period. He also

received interest from in his PPF account to the tune of Rs.

94,390/-. During the aforesaid period, Smti. Bani Chakraborty also

took a loan of Rs. 1,55,000/- from the UCO bank, Tezpur. Taking

into account the loan obtained and the salary received by Sri

Diganta Chakraborty and his wife Smti. Bani Chakraborty, as

9

showed by the prosecution, total income received during the

check period appeared to be Rs. 34,87,578/-. Along with the

aforesaid amount, assets of Sri Diganta Chakraborty and Smti.

Bani Chakraborty at the beginning of the check period i.e. 31st

March, 1995 is to be added which is Rs. 5,86,926/-.

However, DW 3 proved a document as Ext B to show that accused

was sanctioned an overdraft of Rs.350000/- by the UCO bank. If

the said amount is added to the joint income of the accused and

his wife the total amount of income from the known source of

income at the end of the check period would be Rs.4424504/.

13. PW-1, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 25, 29, 30, 33 and 41

revealed the expenditure incurred by the accused during the

check period. The total expenditure incurred by the accused

during the check period including the unverified household

expenditures, as shown by the prosecution, came to Rs.

17,14,638/-.

14. In view of the above, after deducting the expenditure

from the total known income of the accused and his wife, value of

the asset of the accused and his wife from known source of

income ought to have been Rs.2709866/-.

15. Let me now find out the asset and it’s value, acquired

by the accused in his name and in the name of his family

including his wife Bani Chakroborty (since deceased). CW-1, Sri

Hem Chandra Bora, who was working in the Valuation Department

of Income Tax as Junior Engineer (Valuation) on 31.12.2009,

10

exhibited the valuation report in respect of the value of the

property constructed by accused Sri Diganta Chakraborty in

Tezpur Town during the check period, as Ext 177. In the cross-

examination, the CW-1 stated that the valuation of the above

property was determined on the basis of the rate of Delhi Plinth

Area Rate and not as per Assam PWD rate. During argument

learned defence lawyer submitted that the rate of Delhi Plinth

Area of Delhi Schedule of rate is far more higher than the rate of

Assam PWD. However, the defence did not adduce any acceptable

evidence to show that determination of the valuation of the

property as per Delhi Plinth Area rate was prejudicial to the

accused. Ext-177 has broken up the valuation of the property,

mentioned aforesaid, as per construction made years-wise and it

appeared that about Rs. 18,15,764/- was spent during the check

period.

16. Vis-a-vis the evidence of this witness let me compare

the evidence of DW-4, Sri Ravi Shankar Dutta, who was a

registered and approved valuer. At the request of Sri Diganta

Chakraborty, he assessed the value of the property in question

and found the total valuation of the property without the land cost

to be Rs. 24.59 lacs. He admitted that he had neither adopted the

CPWD rate nor Assam PWD rate. The valuation report submitted

by him is exhibited by defence as Ext-‘X’. During cross-

examination by the prosecution it transpired that the expenditure

incurred for the construction of the properties was taken by him

as told to him by accused Diganta Chakraborty. That apart, on

comparison of the testimony of CW1 and DW4 it appeared that

11

the prosecution showed the value of the construction made

during check period to be far less than the total value of the

property without cost of land as shown by the defence witness.

There is therefore, no question of the accused being prejudiced

even if rate of Delhi plinth area is higher than that of Assam PWD

rate.

17. PW-3, 5, 23 and 32 proved the various assets

acquired by the accused in his name and in the name of his family

members in the form of bank fixed deposits, PPF deposits and

others during the check period. These documents were proved as

Ext-6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36,

38, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52, 54, 55, 56, 66, 100, 130, 131, 132,

133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144 and

145. The total amount of money deposited in cash in the financial

institutions, as exhibited by the prosecution, was found to be

Rs.2964350/-. When this is added to the money spent on the

construction (Rs. 18,15,764/-) during the check period, the total

comes to Rs.4780114/-. This amount clearly appeared to be very

substantially disproportionate to the known source of joint income

of the accused and his wife which was calculated to be

Rs.2709866/- after deduction of expenditure during the check

period.

18. However, to show the legitimacy of the assets and to

account for the assets found to have been possessed in the name

of accused and his family members, defence examined DW-5 who

12

was a Tax Consultant at Tezpur and was known to the accused.

DW-5 proved a report prepared by him as Ext-G in which he

appeared to have computed the assets of the accused at the

commencement of the check period and it’s cash flow. In the

Annexures enclosed with the report there was also a computation

of salaries and deduction of the accused during the period. But

during cross-examination the witness, however, admitted that the

calculation made in the Annexures were made on the basis of

figures and amounts told to him by the accused for preparing the

Ext-G. He had also stated that he could not verify whether entries

in Ext-G were genuine or not. It is, therefore, difficult to place

reliance on Ext-G and testimony of DW-5. Another witness

namely, DW 1, examined by the defence, proved a document as

Ext A to show that certain fixed deposits were closed on

10.10.2006 to liquidate a loan. But this transaction could not be

considered because it was beyond the check period.

19. It may be mentioned here that prosecution also

examined PW-4 who was an officer of UCO bank and was posted

at Zonal Office of UCO bank, Jorhat. He deposed that a

disciplinary proceeding against the accused was initiated by his

controlling and disciplinary authority and the proceeding

culminated in dismissal of the accused from service. The relevant

order of the disciplinary authority was exhibited as Ext-64. During

statement u/s 313 Cr.PC, accused was asked to offer his response,

if any, on the aforesaid testimony of PW-4 as well as on Ext-64.

The accused responded by saying that it was a fact.

13

On perusal of the Ext-64 it appeared that in the disciplinary

proceeding the charges were primarily of financial impropriety and

misuse of official capacity in dealing with matters involving huge

amount of money.

20. During argument learned lawyer for defence submitted

that it would be highly prejudicial to the accused if he was

expected to explain or account for the money found as bank fixed

deposit receipts in the name of his wife. Learned Spl. PP for CBI

on the other hand submitted that it is a typical case where the

money /property was kept in the name of the wife of the accused

and the accused suo moto admitted having done so during his

statement which was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate. It

would be pertinent, at this juncture, to refer to the “statement”

referred to above.

21. During investigation the I/O took the accused before

learned CJM, Kamrup (M) with a prayer for recording his

statement u/s 164 Cr.PC. Admittedly, the accused was on bail at

that point of time but though the prayer was for recording

statement of an accused u/s 164 Cr.PC, it (Ext 86) was recorded

by a learned Judicial Magistrate as if it was a statement of a

witness. During his examination u/s 313 Cr.PC, the accused was

asked to give his response on the aforesaid statement which was

exhibited by learned Judicial Magistrate (PW-17) as Ext.- 86.

14

Response of the accused was that he was induced by the CBI to

appear before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. He further

stated that such statement was not admissible in law. It is very

curious to note that the accused was perhaps conscious and

aware of the legal provision or legal consequence of his statement

and though the I/O had prayed for recording confessional

statement of the accused, may be because of oversight, the

statement which was recorded was apparently as if it was a

statement of a witness. However, in any view of the matter, Ext

86, in no way, could be considered as a confessional statement.

22. The accused was charged with committing an offence

of holding/ possessing disproportionate assets beyond his known

source of income in his name and/or in the name of his family

members. It was submitted by Learned Special PP, CBI that

common method adopted to park asset disproportionate to known

source of income is to keep it in the name of spouse or other

close family members. In the instant case the accused was

charged to have possessed assets disproportionate to his known

source of income in his name and/or in the name of his family.

Since wife of the accused was also an earning person (Teacher),

while computing the known source of income, income of the

accused as well as his wife was taken together.

23. In view of the above, it appeared that the prosecution

duly discharged it’s burden of proving, beyond reasonable doubt,

15

that the asset found to have been under the possession of the

accused was disproportionate to the known source of income far

more than the limit of 20%.

24. From the aforesaid discussion of the evidence on

record it appeared that even if the total income of the accused

and his wife during the check period, was taken together as

known source of income of the accused, the value of the asset

found to have been possessed by him in his name and in the

name of his wife stood at Rs. Rs.4780114/-. At the end of the

check period the joint income of the accused and his wife from all

known source was Rs.4424504/- and total expenditure during

the check period was Rs.17,14,638/-. After deducting the

expenditure (Rs.1714638/-) from the known source of income

(Rs.4424504/-) of the accused and his wife the amount came to

Rs.2709866/-. But the asset found under the possession of the

accused including the asset in his name and in the name of his

wife appeared to be Rs.4780114/-. On calculation it appeared that

amount of asset disproportionate to the known source of income

was far more than the limit of 20%.

24. Hence, the accused is held guilty u/s 13(1)(e) read

with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and is

convicted under the aforesaid section.

25. Heard the accused on the point of sentence. The

statement is recorded in separate sheet and kept with the record.

He stated that after his wife’s death he leaves alone and his

16

daughter is dependent on him. He prayed for leniency. On

consideration of the facts of the case and the statement of the

accused/ convict, I sentence accused Diganta Chakroborty u/s

13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption of Act,

1988 to R.I for 3 (three) years and fine of Rupees One lakh and in

default of payment of fine to further R.I for 6 months.

Given under the hand seal of this court on this 30 th day of

June, 2015.

Special Judge

CBI, Assam, Guwahati

17

A N N E X U R E

List of Prosecution Witnesses :

Sl. No. Witness No. Name of the Witness

1. PW-1 Sh. Anand Chaterjee2. PW-2 Sh. Avdesh Kumar Bajpayee3. PW-3 Sh. Bikash Sharma4. PW-4 Sh. Hemanta Boro5. PW-5 Sh. Mahendra Nath Saikia6. PW-6 Sh. Karim Ali7. PW-7 Sh. Islam Ahmed8. PW-8 Sh. Ritu Baran Sarmah9. PW-9 Sh. Pratap Narayan Dohare10. PW-10 Sh. Maheswar Bhuyan11. PW-11 Sh. Hari Prasad Tibrewalla12. PW-12 Sh. Sambhunath Sarkar13. PW-13 Sh. Tapan Kumar Sarma14. PW-14 Md. Aminuddin Ansari15. PW-15 Sh. Abhijit Sarma16. PW-16 Sh. Makhan Bezbaruah17. PW-17 Smt. Chitra Rani Saikia18. PW-18 Sh. Bijay Kumar Basumotary19. PW-19 Sh. Dharmeswar Bora20. PW-20 Sh. Harendra Nath Dutta21. PW-21 Dr. Sajjan Prasad Tewari22. PW-22 Dh. Khudiram Toppo23. PW-23 Sh. Lakshmi Prasad Saikia24. PW-24 Sh. Nikhil Ch. Bhowmik25. PW-25 Sh. Narayan Bania26. PW-26 Sh. Prabhu Dayal Agarwal27. PW-27 Sh. Pradipta Mazumdar28. PW-28 Sh. Prabin Bihari Das29. PW-29 Sh. Ravi Saraf30. PW-30 Sh. Pulak Kumar Kotoky31. PW-31 Sh. Sankar Das32. PW-32 Sh. Ramjoy Kumar Roy33. PW-33 Sh. Rabindra Mohan Kalita34. PW-34 Sh. Shital Chakraborty35. PW-35 Sh. Soumitra Sarkar36. PW-36 Smt. Vandana Soni37. PW-37 Sh. Sushil Kr. Golchha38. PW-38 Sh. Satyabrata Mazumdar39. PW-39 Sh. Prakash Saikia40. PW-40 Sh. Manjit Kr. Buragohain41. PW-41 Sh. Bhabatosh Rudrapal42. PW-42 Sh. Sandesh Pathak43. PW-43 Smt. Shubha Krishmachar44. CW-01 Sh. Hem Chandra Bora

List of Defence Witnesses :

Sl. No. Witness No. Name of the Witness

18

1. DW-1 Sh. Somnath Ghosh2. DW-2 Smt. Uma Chakraborty3. DW-3 Sh. Chandreswar Doley4. DW-4 Sh. Ravi Sankar Dutta5. DW-5 Sh. Satyendra Nath Dutta

19

List of Prosecution Documents :

Sl. No. Exhibit No. Nature of Documents

1. Ext.1 to Ext.4 Invoices / bills.2. Ext.5 Letter dt.16.7.09.3. Ext.6 STDR no.080559.4. Ext.7 Account opening form.5. Ext.8 STDR no.310179.6. Ext.9 Account opening form.7. Ext.10 STDR no.705134.8. Ext.11 Account opening form.9. Ext.12 STDR no. 705135.10. Ext.13 STDR no.705534.11. Ext.14 Account opening form.12. Ext.15 STDR no.705535.13. Ext.16 Account opening form.14. Ext.17 STDR no.080284.15. Ext.18 Account opening form.16. Ext.19 STDR no.704792.17. Ext.20 Account opening form.18. Ext.21 STDR no.704799.19. Ext.22 STDR no.310659.20. Ext.23 Account opening form.21. Ext.24 STDR no.704581.22. Ext.25 Account opening form.23. Ext.26 STDR no.310510.24. Ext.27 Account opening form.25. Ext.28 STDR no.310511.26. Ext.29 Account opening form.27. Ext.30 STDR no.310532.28. Ext.31 Account opening form.29. Ext.32 STDR no.705252.30. Ext.33 Account opening form.31. Ext.34 STDR no.310656.32. Ext.35 Account opening form.33. Ext.36 STDR no.080283.34. Ext.37 Account opening form.35. Ext.38 STDR no.310598.36. Ext.39 Account opening form.37. Ext.40 STDR no.310507.38. Ext.41 Account opening form.39. Ext.42 STDR no.310658.40. Ext.43 Account opening form.41. Ext.44 STDR no.310533.42. Ext.45 Account opening form.43. Ext.46 STDR no.310534.44. Ext.47 Account opening form.45. Ext.48 STDR no.310657.46. Ext.49 Account opening form.47. Ext.50 STDR no.705251.48. Ext.51 Account opening form.49. Ext.52 STDR no.705253.50. Ext.53 Account opening form.

20

51. Ext.54 STDR no.677836.52. Ext.55 STDR no.310439.53. Ext.56 STDR no.704006.54. Ext.57 to Ext.59 Seizure Memos.55. Ext.60 Letter dt. 13.3.2010. 56. Ext.61 Certificate under Bankers Book of Evidence Act.57. Ext.62 Salary and Deduction Register.58. Ext.63 Salary statement.59. Ext.64 Order dt.12.03.200860. Ext.65 Personal File.61. Ext.66 Seizure memo.62. Ext.67 File of Isum Motors.63. Ext.67/1 Booking form.64. Ext.67/3 Invoice.65. Ext.67/6 Letter.66. Ext.67/8 Sale certificate.67. Ext.67/10 Delivery Receipt.68. Ext.68 Cash Memo no.1018.69. Ext.69 Receipt dt.23.12.04.70. Ext.70 & Ext.71 Letters.71. Ext.72 Details of bill payment.72. Ext.73 & Ext.74 Letters.73. Ext.75 Diagram of building.74. Ext.75/1 Seal of design.75. Ext.76 Sale deed.76. Ext.77 Seizure memo.77. Ext.78 Transfer order.78. Mark X Letter dt.17.8.06.79. Ext.79 Letter dt.17.8.06.80. Ext.80 Bill dt.16.8.04.81. Ext.81 Letter dt.17.3.10.82. Ext.82 Statement of account.83. Ext.83 Proforma invoice.84. Ext.84 Invoice cum cash memo.85. Ext.85 Order sheet.86. Ext.86 Statement of Diganta Chakraborty.87. Ext.87 Order.88. Ext.88 Affidavit.89. Ext.89 Search memo.90. Ext.90 Inventory.91. Ext.91 Letter dt.28.4.10.92. Ext.92 & Ext.93 Acquaintance Rolls.93. Ext.94 Letter dt.19.9.09.94. Ext.95 Acquaintance Roll.95. Ext.96 Statement of Salary.96. Ext.97 Letter .97. Ext.98 Personal File of Bani Chakraborty.98. Ext.99 PPF account opening form.99. Ext.100 Copy of ledger.100. Ext.101 Certificate.101. Ext.102 Application.102. Ext.102/1 Date stamp.103. Ext.103 Letter dt.15.3.10.104. Ext.104 Insurance policy.105. Ext.105 Policy schedule.

21

106. Ext.106 Money receipt.107. Ext.107 Policy certificate.108. Ext.108 Contract receipt.109. Ext.109 Contract receipt.110. Ext.110 Search list.111. Ext.111 Inventory.112. Ext.112 Letter dt.16.3.10.113. Ext.113 RT No.2623547.114. Ext.114 Credit challan.115. Ext.115 Letter dt.12.3.10.116. Ext.116 Money receipt.117. Ext.117 Money receipt.118. Ext.118 Car Policy.119. Ext.119 Premium schedule.120. Ext.120 Insurance certificate.121. Ext.121 Insurance jacket.122. Ext.122 Policy.123. Ext.123 Letter dt.15.3.10.124. Ext.124 Money receipt.125. Ext.125 Policy.126. Ext.126 Policy.127. Ext.127 Money receipt.128. Ext.128 Policy.129. Ext.129 Seizure memo.130. Ext.130 Receipt.131. Ext.131 to Ext.136 Receipts of fixed deposit.132. Ext.137 Deposit receipt.133. Ext.138 to Ext.145 Certificates of Kuber Yojna Deposit.134. Ext.146 Letter dt.13.03.09.135. Ext.147 Annexure-II.136. Ext.148 Annexure-I.137. Ext.149 Letter dt.12.3.10.138. Ext.150 to Ext.153 Premium receipts.139. Ext.154 to Ext.156 Policy dockets.140. Ext.157 to Ext.161 Bills.141. Ext.163 Letter dt.13.3.10.142. Ext.164 to Ext.167 Money receipts.143. Ext.168 & Ext.169 Letters.144. Ext.170 F. I. R.145. 171 Authority letter.146. Ext.172 Seizure Memo.147. Ext.173 Seizure Memo.148. Ext.174 Letter.149. Ext.175 Annexure.150. Ext.176 Letter dt.31.12.09.151. Ext.177 Valuation of property.152. Ext.178 & 182 Cash memos.153. Ext.183 Letter.154. Ext.184 to Ext.186 Money receipts.155. Ext.187 Letter.156. Ext.188 & Ext.189 Money receipts.157. Ext.190 Letter dt.15.3.10.158. Ext.191 STDR.159. Ext.192 & Ext.193 Account opening forms.160. Ext.194 Letter.

22

161. Ext.195 Income & Expenditure statement.162. Ext.196 Letter dt.2.9.09.163. Ext.197 Letter.164. Ext.198 Building permission.165. Ext.199 Charge sheet.166. Ext.200 List of witnesses.167. Ext.201 List of documents.168. Ext.202 Letter dt.30.6.10.

List of Defence Exhibits :

Sl. No. Exhibit No. Nature of Documents

1. Ext. A Loan Ledger folio. 2. Ext. B Sanction advice.3. Ext. C Letter4. Ext. D Provisory note.5. Ext. E A-3 note.6. Ext. F Valuation report.7. Ext. G Statement of assets.

Special Judge, CBIAssam, Guwahati