Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: da case in Smt. Runu Ghosh vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 25 September, 2009Matching Fragments
24. Over a year and a half later, based on a source information, the CRL.A. No. 482 of 2002 etc. page 14 of 28 Anti Corruption Unit-IV of the CBI registered the file case i.e. RC 3(A)/96/ACU-IV under Section 120 B IPC and Sections 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) PCA on 8thAugust 1996 alleging that Sri Sukh Ram had in his capacity as MoS (C) and Smt. Runu Ghosh in her capacity as Director (FA- V) being public servants acted in conspiracy amongst themselves and with M/s ARM and by corrupt and illegal means or by abusing their position as such public servants caused pecuniary advantage either to M/s. ARM and to themselves. Present case not linked to the DA Case against Appellants
25. It requires to be mentioned at this stage that during the investigation of the present case a raid was conducted on 16 th August 1996 at the residence of Sri Sukh Ram. According to the CBI as a result thereof documents relating to various immovable properties and unaccounted cash were recovered. A separate case, RC-IVA/96/ACU- IV, (hereafter ‗DA case') was thereafter registered o 27th August 1996 against Sri Sukh Ram for possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The DA case was tried separately and a judgment was delivered on 20th February 2009 by the trial court convicting Sri Sukh Ram for the offence under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (e) PC Act and by an order dated 25th February 2009 sentencing him to three years' RI and fine and 6 months' SI in default. Crl. A. No. 287 of 2009 filed by Sri Sukh Ram against the said judgment has been admitted and is pending in this Court.
26. It is not the case of the CBI that the money and documents relating CRL.A. No. 482 of 2002 etc. page 15 of 28 to properties seized from the residence of Sri Sukh Ram in the DA case are linked to the present case. Sri S.S. Gandhi, learned Senior counsel appearing for Appellant M/s. ARM submitted that the CBI did examine if a bundle of currency notes recovered from the residence of Sri Sukh Ram could be traced to M/s. ARM but did not find such link. Neither before the trial court nor before this Court has the CBI argued that the DA case and the present case are connected.
The issues that arise
30. In the present case the evidence is essentially in the form of notes on file dated 25th May and 24th July 1993 of Smt.Ghosh and the notes dated 31st August, 19th November and 13th December 1993 of Sri Sukh Ram. There are cases under the PC Act 1988 in which a trap is laid to gather evidence of the public servant accepting illegal gratification or in which a raid is undertaken of the place of residence or work with a view to unearthing the amassing of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income of such public servant. However, according to the CBI, the present case is not linked with the DA case against the Appellants Sri Sukh Ram and Smt.Runu Ghosh. This case is one where the public servant is not shown to have gained any pecuniary benefit but is accused of abusing the official position and obtaining it for another person. The prosecution's case is built around Section 13 (1)