JUDGMENT :

Rumi Kumari Phukan, J.

This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 25.07.2011 passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Assam, Guwahati in Special Case NO. 33/2006 there by convicting the accused persons under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention and Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing them to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) each, in default Rigorous Imprisonment for three months.

2. I have heard Mr. SK N Mahammad, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. SC Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, CBI.

3. The brief of the case is that on the basis of information received by Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, Guwahati against appellants, namely, Manoj Kumar Barman and his wife Smt. Jini Barman, a case being numbered RC.11(A)/1996 was registered for acquiring assets which is disproportionate to their known source of income while working as Head Goods Clerk at BG Inward Goods Office, New Guwahati, NF Railway and Smt. Jini Barman while working as Office Superintendent (OS) in New Guwahati in the Office of the Assistant Controller of Stores, BG Inward Goods Office, New Guwahati, NF Railway and a case under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, 1988 was registered against both the appellants. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against both the appellants under the aforesaid sections.

4. The accused persons entered their appearance and denied the charge under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) that was framed against them. The plea of defence is of total denial.

5. The prosecution examined 31 witnesses and exhibited number of documents to bring home charge levelled against both the appellants. One of the accused examined himself in his defence in support of their plea. Statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they have denied all such allegations.

6. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court found and held both the accused persons guilty and convicted them as aforesaid. Challenging the legality and validity of the judgment, present appeal has been preferred.

7. I have heard the submission of learned counsel Mr. SK N Ahmed and on behalf of the appellant and Mr. SC Keyal, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the CBI.

8. Initiating the argument on behalf of the appellants Mr. Ahmed has submitted that the I/O has prepared the statement of expenditure without accounting the proper and correctness of documents. In respect of salary and allowances of the appellants the prosecution examined P.W. 4 and 7 and exhibited the salary documents as Ext.8 and 12 respectively. But salary particulars for some months were not included in the aforesaid statements. P.W. 4 in his cross- examination admitted that Ext.8 is not a complete document. Again Ext. 12 is the salary particulars of the accused Jini Deka Raja which is exhibited by the P.W. 7 is also not the complete document regarding the income of the accused Jini Deka Raja. As admitted by the P.W.7 arrear salary for the year of 1989, 1992 to 1995 were not shown separately in Ext.12. Productivity Life Bonus is also provided to the Railway employs on the eve of Durga Puja as admitted by the P.W.7. But the same is not taken into consideration by the prosecution.

9. Further it was contended that the I/O-P.W.31 in his evidence admitted that in making the salary statement he has not considered the bonus and other benefits received by the appellants.

10. Regarding the valuation report of house and properties of the appellants it is submitted that the evidence of P.W.15, 19 and 23 are contradictory to each other.

11. It was submitted that the P.W.10, 13 and 23 categorically stated that the appellants sold the milk etc. and they used to purchase the same from the appellants for many years. But the I/O has not counted the same