Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESHARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
Sarat Ch. Bora S/o Late Akadahia Bora – Appellant
Versus
CBI – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.
1. Heard Mr. S. Bharali, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. M Haloi, learned Special Public Prosecutor, CBI.
2. The challenge:
The present appeal is directed against the judgment and sentence dated 05.08.2008, passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Assam, Guwahati in Special Case No. 85/2004 (Old case No. Spl. 4(c) 2000), whereby the appellant was convicted under Sections 13 (1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was sentenced to undergo for 2 (two) years of simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for 1 (one) year.
3. The Background:
I. The prosecution was launched by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), against accused Sarat Ch. Borah, an Assistant Engineer, CPWD, Guwahati, based on alleged source of information registered a case being Case No. RC.28(A)/96-SHG, alleging that the said Sarat Ch. Borah acquired huge wealth during his service tenure from 1971 to 1986, which was not in proportion to what he then earned, from out of his all known income sources and had failed to account the same satisfactorily.
II. The Investigating Authority investigate
The court clarified that for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution must demonstrate clear excess assets beyond known income, while the burden of explanation shifts to t....
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that a public servant possesses assets disproportionate to their known income.
The court reaffirmed the significance of lawful procedures in asset seizure under the Prevention of Corruption Act, emphasizing the requirement for evidentiary clarity regarding asset ownership.
The court affirmed that public servants must satisfactorily account for assets; the burden shifts to the accused once disproportionate assets are established by the prosecution.
The excess of surplus income being less than 10% may not justify the presumption of disproportionate assets under Sec. 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The conviction of a public servant for possession of disproportionate assets requires the prosecution to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt, including a meticulous evaluation of income, as....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the charge can be framed based on the possibility of the commission of a crime, even if the case is based on circumstantial evidence. The Cour....
The prosecution must prove disproportionate assets beyond reasonable doubt, allowing a 10% margin for known income, which was not established in this case.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
