Sri B.K. Chetri (A.J.S.) - Kamrup(M) District Judiciary

1

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

COURT NO-II, CHANDMARI, GUWAHATI-3

Special Case No. 7/2007

State(CBI)

Vs

1. R.U. Barlaskar, 2. Jayanta Thakuria, 3. Anupam Nath & 4. K.M. Brahma.

u/s 120B, 420, 468, 471, 477A IPC and Sec 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of P.C. Act, 1988

PRESENT

Sri B.K. Chetri (A.J.S.) Special Judge, CBI, Assam, Additional CBI Court No-II, Chandmari, Guwahati.

APPEARANCES

For the State ………….. Mr. S.K. Singh, Ld. P.P., CBI,

For Defence…………….. N.H. Mazarbhuiyan & Dilip Kr. Deka.

Date of Prosecution Evidence: 09.08.2012, 10.08.2012, 13.08.2012,

10.09.2012, 11.09.2012, 09.10.2012,

08.11.2012, 07.12.2012, 10.12.2012,

04.01.2013, 01.02.2013, 03.05.2013,

02.09.2013, 01.10.2013, 30.10.2013,

25.11.2013, 21.01.2014, 07.03.2014.

Date of statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C.: 17.06.2014, 30.06.2014.

Date of Defence Evidence: 03.10.2016, 25.11.2016.

Date of Argument: 14.12.2016.

Date of Judgement: 31.12.2016

2

JUDGEMENT AND ORDER

The prosecution case as unfurled from the FIR dated 27.02.2007 of

Ganesh Verma, SP, CBI, ACB, Shillong is that as per information dated 21.02.2007

received from a reliable source that during the year 1992-94 the accused persons

namely Sri G.P. Singh(Executive Engineer), R.U. Barlaskar(AEE), Mintu

Debnath(Divisional Accountant), Jayanta Thakuria(JE), Gakul Bora(JE), Anupam

Nath(JE), K.M. Brahma(JE), N.I. Mazumdar(JE) of Brahmaputra Board, Barak

Valley Investigation Division, Silchar and some contractor/ suppliers entered into a

criminal conspiracy and awarded contracts of supply of building materials for 23

nos. of semi permanent building costing around of Rs. 50,00,000/- at Tipaimukh

High Dam Project. The building materials were purchased at a very high rate from

Silchar and transported from Silchar to the project site by departmental vehicle

whereas, as per NIT, the contractors were to supply the materials at the work site.

Some construction materials like, sand, gravel, boulders, bamboos etc were

purchased locally at the project site but the same were shown to have been

purchased from Silchar, showing high rates and the payments were made to the

suppliers on the basis of forged bills procured from Silchar. Further allegation is

that the forest royalty in respect of bamboo, sand, gravel and boulders were not

paid. In the process huge loss was caused to the Brahmaputra Board

corresponding to the pecuniary gain to the accused persons.

Further allegation is that accused G.P. Singh prepared the estimated

cost for construction of 23 nos. of semi permanent building at Lusaikhal at an

estimated cost of Rs. 2,22,21,900/- as per the PWD schedule rate of 1991 and

after approval of the same by the Chief Engineer NIT was shown invited by G.P.

Singh. However, no NIT available with the Brahmaputra Board. The comparative

statement reveals that the rate of Tender was 192% to 200% above the estimated

Cost for which the tender committee recommended for retendering in its meeting

dated 16.03.1993. however, prior to the receipt of the order of retendering, G.P.

Singh vide note dated 16.01.93 invited tender for supply of locally available

building materials. NIT was not published and quotations were received and

violating the norms/ rules and G.P. Singh issued supply orders to all the 17

tenderers without negotiation.

3

G. P. Singh also invited quotation on 10.02.1993 for supply of

Tabular Truss at an estimated cost of Rs. 70,000/- but no NIT documents are

available in support of publication of NIT. R.U. Baslaskar submitted comparative

statement of 9 bidders to G.P. Singh recommending negotiation of rate. Out of 9

parties 4 attended the negotiation and a total supply order given to them was at

Rs. 5,32,640/-, which was against the estimated cost of Rs. 70,000/-. The bills

were verified by the concerned Junior Engineers and countersigned by R.U.

Barlaskar, same were checked by Mintu Debnath and finally passed for payment by

G.P. Singh.

Further allegation is that G.P. Singh in conspiracy with other officials

and parties prepared false and bogus bills and caused wrongful loss to

Brahmaputra Board to the tune of Rs. 5,32,460/-. G.P. Singh called quotation on

10.02.1993 for land development for construction of building with estimate value

of Rs. 40,000/- and earth work for construction of internal colony road, ramp etc

with estimated value of Rs. 40000/-. G.P. Singh in order to show favour to the

contractors gave a false note dated 02.03.1993 mentioning that the rates have

been approved by the Superintending Engineer and awarded the works to the

contractors, whereas the Superintending Engineer vide his note dated 02.03.1993

instructed for retendering or negotiation of rates. Further the work orders were

issued to different contractors in excess of approved quantity.

Rs. 3,99,677.85/- and Rs. 1,47,665.90/- were paid to the

contractors for development of land, for construction of quarters and temporary

shed and Rs. 1,66,803.52/- was paid towards construction of ramp.

It is also mentioned in the FIR that in response to the NIT dated

05.01.1993 for supply of G.I. pipes and G.I. fitting, 23 tenders were received out

of which 3 were rejected, comparative statement was prepared by accused Mintu

Debnath. Supply orders were issued to 7 farms on the conditions that the supply is

to be made at the project site. But the same were brought by the department

incurring transport charges. No test check of materials were done and the bills for

Rs. 1,65,046/- and Rs. 1,95,468/- were passed for payment.

The work of construction of the 23 residential building at Tipaimukh

Dam project were shown executed by engaging labourers on muster Roll but none

of the laboureres were available at the respective villages. Accused no.2 and

4

accused no. 3 to 8 prepared false bills in the name of bogus labourers and the

same was countersigned by R.U. Barlaskar. The payments were approved by G.P.

Singh and accused Mintu Debnath checked the bills and recommended payment. A

sum of Rs. 19,89,659/- was paid towards labour charges on the basis of false and

fabricated bills.

The FIR was registered as RCSHG2007A0002 u/s 120B, 420, 467,

468, 471 IPC and Sec 13(2) r/w Sec 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act (P.C.

Act), 1988 dated 27.02.2007. After completion of the investigation and obtaining

necessary prosecution sanction, charge sheet for offence u/s 120B, 420, 467, 468,

471, 477A IPC and Sec 13(2) r/w Sec 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988 against the

accused R.U. Barlaskar, Assistant executive Engineer, Jayanta Thakuria, Junior

Engineer, Gakul Bora, Junior Engineer, Anupam Nath, Junior Engineer and K.M.

Brahma, Junior Engineer was submitted. The accused G.P. Singh, Mintu Ch.

Debnath and N.I. Mazumdar were not sent up for trial and no reason shown for

not charge sheeting them.. Be it be mentioned herein that during trial accused

Gakul Bora died and case against him abated vide order dated 30.10.2013.

As per the charge sheet investigation disclose that 17 files relating

to tender and allotment of work were seized and the same being examined by the

CPWD Engineers found that the omission/ commission by the accused in the files

were mainly administrative in nature and no criminality could be established. The

supplies were made by 35 private firms from Silchar, Manipur and Mizoram. 90%

of the materials were supplied by the farms from Silchar and out of 25 such firms

from Silchar, only 3 could be located. As regard the allegation of supply of

materials from Silchar being transported by the Govt. vehicle, no such

corresponding entry in the log book was found available and the allegation could

not be established.

Accused Junior Engineers have engaged daily casual labourers

through muster roll, their identity were certified by the JEs and in their presence

physical payments were made by R.U. Barlaskar. Investigation reveals that the

labourers were not from the given villages. It is revealed that accused Jayanta

Thakuria, Gakul Bora, Anupam Nath, K.M. Brahma, N.I. Mazumdar and Rajkumar

Thakur have stated that they have made payment to fake casual labourer and

have put their LTIs. Positive opinions received as regards finger prints of Jayanta

5

Thakuria, Gakul Bora, Anupam Nath and K.M. Brahma on the muster rolls. The

payment was made by R.U. Barlaskar on being identified by the accused Junior

Engineers.

Investigation revealed that from the muster rolls prepared by

Jayanta Thakuria, Gakul Bora, Anupam Nath and K.M. Brahma an amount of Rs.

2307.50/-, 19523.50/-, 2201/- and 15,398.50/- respectively were shown in place of

non existing casual labourers by putting their thumb impressions and the amounts

siphoned off by the accused persons. R.U. Barlaskar had physically made

payments to these non existing casual labourers in conspiracy with other 4

accused persons and thereby siphoned total amount of Rs. 39,430.50/- by

resorting to forgery and impersonation.

In due course on receipt of summons the accused persons

appeared before the Court and the necessary documents were furnished to the

accused. After hearing ld. Advocates for both the sides and considering the

materials on record my ld. predecessor vide order dated 22.06.2012 framed

charges u/s 120B, 420, 468, 471, 477A IPC and Sec 13(2) r/w Sec 13(1)(d) of P.C.

Act, 1988 against the accused persons. The charges on being read over and

explained to the accused pleaded not guilty.

During trial accused Gakul Borah expired and case against him

stands abated as per order dated 30.10.2013.

In support of its contentions, prosecution examined following witnesses-

PW-1 – Munindra Prasad, Khalashi, Brahmaputra Board,

PW- 2 – Chand Mohan Das, Superintending Engineer, Brahmaputra Board,

PW- 3- K.K. Bhagawati, AEE, Brahmaputra Board,

PW-4- Amarjyoti baruah, G.M., Brahmaputra Board

PW-5- Ngamkhophang, Supervisor, Election branch, Surachandpur, Manipur,

PW-6- Lalvulmawi Amo, Village Chief of Patpuihmun, Phulpui & Thingpuikuol,

Mizoram,

PW-7- Rajan Nair, Retd. Chairman, Brahmaputra Board,

PW-8- H.L. Zarlien, Cultivator, Surachandpur, Manipur,

PW-9- Hmusuokthar, Cultivator, Surachandpur, Manipur,

6

PW-10- Iltaf Hussain, Superintending Engineer-cum-CVO, Brahmaputra Board,

PW-11- Ral Kapthuof, Cultivator, Surachandpur, Manipur,

PW-12- Ebenezar, Cultivator, Surachandpur, Manipur,

PW-13- Sagar Sarma, S.I., CID, Shillong,

PW-14- Suhash Mitra, Deputy Superintendent, National Crime Records Bureau,

Kolkata,

PW-15- Lalhmingthanga, U.D.C., o/o SDO, Civil, Singhat, Manipur,

PW-16- S.K. Chanda, retd. Scientific Officer, CFSL, CBI, New Delhi,

PW-17- M.T. Mang, DSP, CBI, ACB, Guwahati, (I.O.),

PW-18- Atul Prasad Rai, Retd. Inspector of Police, Assam, (I.O.),

PW-19- Tridibeswar Das, S.P., CBI, (I.O.),.

The statement of accused recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. they have

denied the allegation and stated that they were falsely implicated in this case.

Accused Anupam Nath stated that out of 23 nos. of semi permanent

buildings constructed, 17 were constructed during the period of R.U. Barlaskar,

AEE and the remaining 6 during the period of K.K. Bhagawati, AEE. During the

execution of Harang Project in the Cachar district during the period 2001-05

several public complaints were lodged before the public authorities to the Govt. of

India and suspecting R.U. Barlaskar behind such complaint, CBI made an house

search on the residence of R.U. Barlaskar on 30.06.2005 and recovered a

complaint dated 21.05.2005 (Ext. B) wherein R.U. Barlaskar pointed out

involvement of the CBI in misappropriation of public money of Rs. 1 crore vide

assessment report dated 20.01.2006 (Ext. C) for which the CBI targeted R.U.

Barlaskar after 14 years of completion of concerned works and after 7 years of

handing over these building to NEEPCO, leaving aside the other Asstt. Executive

Engineers(AEE) during whose tenure the remaining 6 building out of 23 were

constructed. Since he worked as Junior Engineer under R.U. Barlaskar he has been

falsely implicated in this case.

R.U. Barlaskar plea is also the same as of Anupam Nath except he

has mentioned the name of the AEE as K.K. Bhagawati and P.K. Khataniar under

whom the remaining 6 buildings were constructed.

7

Accused R.U.Borlaskar and Jayanta Thakuria vide petition dated 03-

10-2016 prayed to allow them to adduce evidence but subsequently vide petition

dated 17-11-2016 accused Jayanta Thakuria declined to adduce evidence.

Defence in support of its contentions adduced evidence of witnesses as

follows:

DW-1- G.P. Singh, Superintending Engineer, Brahmaputra Board, (Accused No.1 as

per FIR, but not charge sheeted)

DW-2- Bijay Barman, Junior Engineer, Brahmaputra Board,

DW-3- P.K. Khataniar, Retd. AEE, Brahmaputra Board,

DW-4- R.U. Barlaskar (Accused).

PROSECUTION EXHIBITED THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS-

Ext. 1 to Ext. 27 Muster Roll,

Ext. 28 & Ext. 29- Certificates of transfer of charge,

Ext. 30 - Order at 18-05-2009 appointing P.W.-4 as the Ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority for accused J.E.

Ext.31 to Ext. 34- Prosecution Sanction Order,

Ext. 35- Letter of D.C., Churachandpur to Inspector of Police, CBI forwarding the electoral rolls,

Ext. 36 to Ext. 42- Electoral rolls,

Ext. 43- Certificate of Chief of Vangaisuntuk Village stating non inhabitance of list of some persons,

Ext. 44- Sanction letter,

Ext.45- Certificate of Chairman & Secretary of Sipuikawn Village stating non inhabitance of list of some persons,

Ext. 46 & Ext. 47- Forwarding letter dated 18.07.08 and 30.07.08 of I. Hussain, CVO to SP, CBI, Shillong giving details of employees,

Ext. 48- Certificate of Chairman, Lungthulien Village stating non inhabitance of list of some persons,

Ext. 49- Register of inhabitant of villages namely- Lungthulein, Rovakawat, Leisen, Sehmun, Hmarkhawpui (Sipuikawn), Senvawn, Sitam and Parvachawm,

8

Ext. 50- Certificate of Ebenezer Loitlang, Parbung Village headman stating non inhabitance of list of some persons,

Ext. 51- Specimen finger print of accused Jayanta Thakuria,

Ext. 52- Specimen finger print of accused Gakul Borah,

Ext. 53- Specimen finger print of accused K.M. Brahma,

Ext. 54- Specimen finger print of accused Anupam Nath,

Ext. 55- Finger print report,

Ext. 56- Forwarding letter of National Crime Records Bureau,

Ext. 57- Letter dated 05.11.07 by Lalhmingthanga, UDC, SDO’s office, Tipaimukh,

Ext. 58- Finger Print report,

Ext. 59 & Ext. 60- Annexure of Finger Print report(Ext. 58),

Ext. 61- Forwarding letter,

Ext. 62- Forwarding letter of finger print report,

Ext. 63- FIR,

Ext. 64- Forwarding letter,

Ext. 65- Charge sheet,

Ext. 66- Forwarding letter of Charge sheet,

Ext. 67 & Ext. 68- Seizure memo dated 17.05.07 & 12.04.07 respectively.

DEFENCE EXHIBITED THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS-

Ext. A- Information under RTI act,

Ext. B- Complaint/ Mass Public Memorandum,

Ext. C- Letter of R.U. Barlaskar to the Executive Engineer, Brahmaputra Board,

Ext. D & Ext. E- Office order of Brahmaputra Board,

Ext. F- Certificate of transfer of charge,

Ext. G- Officer order of Brahmaputra Board,

Ext. H- Memo of works under Jiribam Invt. Sub Division,

Ext. I- Officer order of Brahmaputra Board,

Ext. J- Notification of Brahmaputra Board,

9

Ext. K, Ext. L & Ext. M- Information under RTI Act,

Ext. N- Abstract of allocation of charge,

Ext. O- Handing over and taking over of charge,

Ext. P- Complaint of R.U. Barlaskar regarding wrongful loss to the public exchequer,

Ext. Q- RTI application,

Ext. R- Postal receipt,

Ext. S- Information under RTI Act dated 19.08.2011,

Ext. T- RTI application,

Ext. U- Forwarding letter of reply under RTI act with respect to RTI application dated 14.09.2013,

Ext. V- RTI application,

Ext. W- Forwarding of information under RTI act,

Ext. X- Information(Letter) received through RTI.

POINTS FOR DETERMINATION

Whether the accused persons entered into criminal conspiracy to

willfully and dishonestly cheat the Brahmaputra Board of Rs.39430.50/- and

thereby falsified documents, committed forgery of documents in the form of

preparing muster rolls showing name of non-existent labourers by putting their

own signatures, used forged documents as genuine knowing and having reasons

to know the same to be forged documents made payment against the name of

those fictitious labourers and used those siphoned money for their own use.

Whether the accused persons being public servant abused their position as

public servant committed the aforesaid offence by corrupt and illegal means for

obtaining pecuniary advantage to themselves.

ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:

i. Muster roll prepared fraudulently and siphoned off Rs.39, 430.50/-.

10

ii. Finger print expert P.W.-14 and p.w.-16 proved the finger prints of the

accused. Ext.55 and Ext.58 are the expert opinion. No corroboration

required for handwriting expert.

iii. P.W.-6,8 and 12, i.e. Village Head Man corroborates the fact that those

muster roll employees do not hail from their village

iv. P.W.-4 and 7 on being satisfied issued the sanction order to prosecute

against the accused persons

v. P.W.-1,2,3 confirmed the signature of R.U.Borlaskar in muster roll i.e. Ext.1

to Ext. 26.

ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE:

i. Ext.1to Ext.27 involves payment of more than Rs.3,57,293/- to the

muster roll employees whereas the allegation is of Rs.39,430.50/-. If the

accused had the intention for such misappropriation, they would have

misappropriated the entire Rs.3,57,293/- .

ii. Without engaging casual labour/muster roll labourers the

construction work was not possible. Labourers were engaged as per CPWD

Manual(Relevant page 218) and the Officer(accused) was not duty bound

to verify the name and address of those labourers. The work site was in

deep jungle of Mizoram, name and address were written as provided by

those labourers, then how could P.W.-6, P.W.-8 and P.W.-12, Village Head

Man of Manipur would know those labourers from Mizoram.

iii. It is not a prosecution case and no evidence led that Ext.1 to Ext.27

(Muster roll) were prepared to misappropriate the amount of

Rs.39430.50/-.

iv. Out of 23 houses constructed, only 17 houses constructed during

the period of accused R.U.Borlaskar were singled out by the CBI and the

other 6 houses constructed during the tenure of other AEE were not

investigated as because CBI has a grudge against the accused

R.U.Borlaskar for lodging a complaint dated 21-05-2005(Ext.B) against the

CBI of criminal conspiracy with other persons in misappropriating around

Rs.1 Cr. in the Harang Project in Cachar during 2001-05.

11

v. FIR (Ext.63) was registered on 27-02-2007 for the project done

during the year 1992-94 and during the period the buildings were handed

over to NEEPCO on 03-04-2000 and by the time the FIR was lodged , the

buildings were almost destroyed due to no inhabitants and non-

maintenance. Delay in FIR is fatal.

vi. During the construction period, CBI inquired into the said matter

and found no discrepancies regarding the works (Ext. K) then why this FIR

after 13 years.

vii. The FIR speaks of misuse of Rs.2,22,21,900/- by the charge

sheeted and non charge sheeted persons but charge sheet submitted

against only five accused and alleging misappropriation of Rs.39,430.50/-

and that too as against 17 houses constructed during the period of R.U.

Barlaskar leaving aside six houses constructed during the period of AEE

K.K. Bhagawati and P.K. Khataniar with same set of accused Junior

Engineers, which indicates grudge and biasness of the CBI against R.U.

Barlaskar.

viii. P.W.-19 has deposed of purchase and utilization of bricks and has

also said that he has seen the bricks at the site, which is not true as P.W.-

3,D.W.-1 and D.W.-4 have specifically stated that no bricks were used in

the construction of those houses.

ix. P.W.-19 deposed that AEE R.U. Barlaskar was involved in

construction and completion of 23 nos. of buildings during 1993-94, which

is not true as P.W.-3 being one of the AEE admitted of being involved in

the construction of 6 nos. of houses, which is confirmed by D.W.-1 and

D.W.-4 and those 6 houses were constructed and completed during the

period 1994-96. Being so P.W.-19 (I.O.) is biased and not speaking the

truth.

x. The CBI Officer named Ganesh Verma who registered the FIR on

source information has not been made a witness and not examined in this

case, thereby, the source of information and the correctness of such

information remained in dark.

xi. P.W.-4 and P.W.-7 has issued the sanction order i.e. Ext.30 to

Ext.34 which are not proper in as much as the same were issued without

any authority and application of mind.

12

xii. There was no complaint from the Brahmaputra Board against the

accused persons and though there is Chief Vigilance Officer of the board to

look into the corruptions and complaints against the officer of the

Brahmaputra Board, the present case was never brought before the

vigilance cell.

xiii. The addresses of the labourers are not verified to find out the

genuineness of the addresses and same recorded as mentioned by the

labourerers.

xiv. In the cross of P.W.-18, it is stated that G.P. Singh (Non-charge

sheeted accused) was the Executive Engineer who issued orders for supply

of materials to 21 nos. of unregistered and fake firms and the supply bills

of Rs.1,65,045/- and Rs.1,95,648/- were passed for payment by him and

the previous I.O. has submitted before the CVC of Brahmaputra Board for

taking departmental proceeding against G.P. Singh and his seniors gave

him written orders to submit charge sheet against the charge sheeted

accused persons. Then charge sheet against the present accused is

biased.

DISCUSSION, DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF :

As per the FIR, the main accused was Sri G.P. Singh, the accused

No.1 in the FIR, and there was allegation of misappropriation of huge amount of

Rs.19,89,659/- towards labour charges on the basis of false and fabricated bills,

supply order of Rs.5,32,640/- allotted as against the estimated cost of Rs.70,000/-,

the construction materials were brought from Silchar in the departmental vehicles

instead of the supplier to provide the materials at the project site, materials shown

to have been purchased in high rates and payment made to the supplier on the

basis of forged bills procured from Silchar. Whereas, the gist of the allegation as

per the charge sheet is that the accused persons in furtherance of their criminal

conspiracy prepared muster roll of the labourers showing fictitious names and

putting their signature against the name of those fictitious persons, shown

payments to the tune of Rs.39,430.50/- in total against those names and used that

money for their own advantage.

13

The charge sheet reflects investigation as regards 17 files relating

to tender and allotment of works and the same on being examined by the CPWD

engineers found that the omission or commission by the accused in the files are

mainly administrative in nature and no criminality could be established. It is also

not found that the supply materials were transported from Silchar by the

Government vehicle.

The allegation appearing in the charge sheet is that the accused

Junior Engineers i.e. Jayanta Thakuria, Gakul Borah, Anupam Nath, K.M.Brahma

along with N.I.Mazumder and Rajkumar Thakur have stated that they have made

payments to fake casual labourers and put their LTI and there is positive opinion

regarding the finger prints of Jayanta Thakuria, Gokul Bora, Anupam Nath,

K.M.Brahma against whom the allegation is of preparing forged and fabricated

muster rolls and siphoning of Rs.2307.50/-, Rs.19,523.50/-, Rs.2201/- and

Rs.15,398.50/- respectively showing payments in the name of non-existing casual

labourers by putting their thumb impressions. The accused R.U.Borlaskar in

conspiracy with other four accused persons had made payments to the non-

existing casual labourers and the total amount of money alleged to have been

siphoned off is Rs.39,430.50/-.

From above, it is seen that in the FIR, the quantum of allegation is

very high, whereas the charge sheet reveals the offence of committing fraud to the

tune of Rs.39,430.50/-. In the FIR, there were 8 accused persons and some

unknown contractors and suppliers but the charge sheet is against the above

mentioned five accused only. The accused No.1 G.P.Singh, accused No.2, Mintu

Debnath and accused No.8, N.I.Mazumder of the FIR has not been charge sheeted

and no explanation given as to why they have not been charge sheeted, where as

the thrust of the allegation in the FIR is against the accused G.P.Singh and charge

sheet also says that the Executive Engineer(accused No.1) headed the

construction work at Lusaikhal and the CPWD Engineers after examining the

documents opined that the Executive Engineer has not signed in the quotations

when they were opened, exceeded power of the Executive Engineer without any

approval, issue of work order randomly to the quotationers without any

justification and haphazard maintenance of measurement book. The bills were

passed by accused No.3, Mintu Debnath being the Divisional Accountant and the

Junior Engineer, N.I. Mazumder and Rajkumar Thakur along with other accused

14

Junior Engineers alleged to have stated that they have made payments to fake

casual labourers and put their LTI’s in place of those labourers, but these three

persons i.e. accused No.1, accused No.2 and accused No.8 in the FIR and

Rajkumar Thakur have not been charge sheeted and no explanation has been

given. This speaks of biasness of the CBI going by the FIR and charge sheet itself,

leaving aside the other evidence on record.

The contents of the charge sheet (Ext.65) vis-à-vis the FIR (Ext.63)

compels one to ponder over the veracity of the allegations and the result of the

investigation in as much as P.W.-18(I.O.) stated in his cross that the previous I.O.

Sri S.Das has submitted before the Chief Vigilance Officer of Brahmaputra Board

for taking departmental proceeding against the Executive Engineer and his seniors

gave him orders to submit charge sheet against only the charge sheeted accused

persons.

Ld. PP submitted that the Muster rolls were prepared by the

accused persons, finger prints of accused persons were proved by the finger print

experts(P.W.14 and P.W.-16), who submitted their reports (Ext.55 and Ext.58). In

this connection, attention was drawn to the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court

reported in AIR 1980 SC 531 (Murari Lal -vs- State of MP), wherein Hon’ble

Supreme Court that in appropriate cases, corroboration may be sought and in

cases where reasons for the opinion are convincing and there is no reliable

evidence throwing a doubt, the uncorroborated testimony of a handwriting expert

may be accepted. In the same judgement, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has referred

to the other judgements of the Supreme Court that the view occasionally

expressed that it would be hazardous to base a conviction solely on the opinion of

expert- handwriting expert or any other kind of expert without substantial

corroboration is not, because expert in general, are unreliable witnesses, but

because all human judgement is fallible. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Iswari

Prasad -vs- Md. Isa reported in AIR 1963 SC 1728 pointed out that expert

evidence of handwriting can never be conclusive because it is, after all opinion

evidence and this view reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 1964 SC

529 (Shashi Kumar-vs-Subodh Kumar) that expert evidence as to handwriting

being opinion evidence can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence

and before acting on such evidence, it would be desirable to consider whether it is

corroborated either by clear direct or circumstantial evidence.

15

In this case the expert opinion of P.W.-14 and P.W.-16 along with

their reports i.e. Ext.55 and Ext.58 do not find corroboration from the main

documents (Ext.1 to Ext.27) relied upon by the prosecution for the reason

discussed herein after.

Ld. PP submitted that the muster roll employees being fictitious

names, do not hail from the given address and P.W.-6,P.W.-8 and P.W.-12 being

Village Headman has supported the prosecution case so far the fake identity of

such labourers.

Defence reply is that the project site was deep inside the jungle of

Mizoram with no proper accessible road(cross of P.W.-2) and it is terrorist infected

area (cross of p.w.-3). The names of the labourers were noted down by the

accused persons, as stated by those labourers and the CPWD Manual do not

provide for verification of the address. Furthermore, these village Headmen are

from district Churachandpur, which falls in the state of Manipur. P.W.-6 deposed

that Ext.43 regarding non existence of person listed therein and Ext.43(1) and

Ext.43(2) , the enclosed list of persons was prepared by the CBI and he had no

occasion or opportunity to verify the particulars mentioned therein. P.W.-6 has

deposed that none of the villagers are from his village (Patpuihmun, Phulpui and

Thingpuikuol ) had gone to work at Tipaimukh Dam construction site as labourers

during the period 1992-94. But the construction was at Lusaikhal and not

Tipaimukh and same clarified by P.W.-3 in his cross. Furthermore, on perusal of

Ext.1 to Ext.27, it is revealed that only three names in Ext.5 are from Patpuihmun

and a single name in Ext.16 from Thingpuikuol.

P.W.-8 is the village Head Man of Sipuikawn village under

Churachandpur District, Manipur. Ext.45 is the certificate issued under his

signature along with list of persons i.e. Ext.45(1), Ext.45(2) and Ext.45(3). He too

deposed that Ext.45, Ext.45(1),Ext.45(2) and Ext.45(3) were not prepared by him

or by Hmusoukthar(P.W.-9), the Chairman of Sipuikawn Village. They have not

verified the contents of these exhibits. They stated in their cross that the person

appearing in serial No.28 in Ext.45(1) is correct and there are many persons with

nick names. They cannot say if some relatives of their village people work at

Lusaikhal as it is not necessary to inform them. The village register was not

produced by the CBI while preparing and verifying the contents of these exhibits.

16

Perusal of Ext.1 to Ext.27 do not reveal the names of muster roll employees or

labourers from any such village named Sipuikawn.

P.W.-12 was the Secretary and Mr. Shoukham was the Chairman of

Purbong village authority. P.W.-12 issued Ext.50 i.e. the certificate along with

Ext.50(1), Ext.50(2) and Ext.50(3) being the list of non residents of village

Purbong. In his cross, he stated that these exhibits were prepared by CBI Officer

M.T.Mang(P.W.-17) in the O/O SDO. On that day, he had been to SDO Tipaimukh

office to submit a work proposal along with the Chairman. He clarified that his

village is Purbong and not Parbon. He was Secretary from 2002-07 and he cannot

say the matters prior to 2000.

In Ext.3, the person at serial No.12 and 13 are from village Parbon.

Even if it is taken to be a mistake in writing the name as Parbon in place of

Purbong, the thumb impression against those names has not been verified. The

thumb impression of Maipa at Serial No.8 is verified and the expert opinion is that

it belongs to Gokul Bora but that person is from Telbong and not from Parbon. In

Ext.5, at serial No.7 and 8, the address of Zaikhar and Jack are shown from

Parbon but the thumb impression against their name has not been verified. In

Ext.9, the person named Remna and Mandung at Serial No.8 and 9 are shown

from Parbon but the relevant thumb impressions not proved. Similarly, in Ext. 10

the signatures of persons named in Serial No.3 to 6 are said to be from Parbon but

the thumb impressions are not verified.

Similar, in the evidence of P.W.-11, who do not know as to why the

I.O. got him sign the Ext.48, Ext.48(1) to Ext.48(5).P.W.-11 hails from village

Lungthulia under district Churachandpur, Manipur.

Ext. 49 produced by the PW-15 do not contain the name, sign and

seal of the maker and page 205-233 missing. Its Hill House counting Book of

inhabitant of villages namely- Lungthulein, Rovakawat, Leisen, Sehmun,

Hmarkhawpui (Sipuikawn), Senvawn, Sitam and Parvachawm,

Perusal of Ext.1 to Ext.27 reveals that except few all other casual

labourers named in muster rolls belong to the village other than those of P.W.-6,

P.W.-8, PW-9, PW-11 and P.W.-12. Furthermore, this P.W.s are not aware of the

contents of exhibits Ext.43, Ext.45 and Ext.50, which were prepared by the CBI

17

and they had no opportunity to verify the contents before signing it. More so, the

list were not prepared after verifying with the village register or village survey.

Ld. PP to buttress his argument that the names in the muster roll

are fictitious referred to Ext.36 to Ext.42 produced in evidence by P.W.-5 i.e. the

electoral roll issued by the Joint Chief Electoral Officer, Imphal in respect of Village

Tipaimukh/Sipuki, Robokot, Parbung(A), Parbung(B), Lungthulia, Patkuihmun and

Ngampapung/Phulpuy respectively. Except exhibiting these electoral rolls, P.W.-5

has not said anything as to the contents of those electoral rolls. Least to say, there

is not even a whisper that the names of muster roll employees do not appear in

those electoral rolls. In his cross, he stated that in the electoral rolls, the full name

of the persons are mentioned and not their nick names and the persons named

therein may have nick names; that there is no rule that the persons whose name

do not appear in the electoral roll cannot reside in those constituencies; that he

never visited the respective villages in respect of preparation of electoral rolls.

The evidence of P.W.-5 and Ext.36 to Ext.42 do not establishes the

prosecution case, as submitted by Ld. PP, that the names appearing in the muster

rolls (Ext.1 to Ext.27) are fictitious. A person’s name may not appear in the

electoral roll even though he is a resident of that constituency and there may be

many reasons for non-inclusion of his names in the electoral roll. Moreover, the

project site was inside the jungle of Mizoram bordering Manipur and it was

terrorist infected area. In such a condition getting detailed verified address of

labourers coming from other places is also not possible.

Being so, the prosecution submission that the P.W.s proves that the

muster roll employees mentioned in Ext.1 to Ext.27 do not belong to the address

mentioned therein remain un-established. To be specific, P.W.-6, P.W.-8 and P.W.-

12 have not been able to be proved the names of casual labourers shown in Ext-1

to Ext. 27 are fictitious.

The next submission of Ld. PP is that the sanctioning authority

(P.W.-4 and P.W.-7) has issued sanction order to prosecute against the accused

persons after being satisfied with the contents of materials against the accused

persons and this corroborates the prosecution allegation against the accused

persons. Ext.31, Ext.32, Ext.33 and Ext.34 are the prosecution sanction issued by

P.W.-4 in respect of accused Jayanta Thakuria, Gakul Borah, Anupam Nath and

18

K.M. Brahma respectively. Ext.44 is the sanction order issued by P.W.-7 in respect

of accused R.U. Barlaskar.

Prosecution referred to the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Paul Verghese –Vs- State of Kerala reported in (2007) 14 SCC 783,

wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that merely because there is an omission,

error or irregularity in the matter of according sanction, that does not affect the

validity of the proceeding unless Court records such omission, error or irregularity

has resulted in failure of justice.

Defence counsel submitted that the sanction orders were issued by

P.W.-4 and P.W.-7 without going through the records and applying their minds. It

is also submitted that these P.W.s have no authority to issue the sanction orders.

As per Ext.30, P.W.-4 was authorized to accord sanction in respect of accused

Anupam Nath and Jayanta Thakuria and not against K.M. Brahma and Gakul

Borah, which is admitted by P.W.4 in his cross examination. Being so, the

prosecution sanction against Gakul Bora and K.M. Brahma is invalid and the

proceeding against them is void ab-initio. Furthermore, on 21-07-2009, the date

on which the prosecution sanction was accorded, P.W.-4 was on leave on medical

ground and P.W.-4 in his cross admitted that prior to 21-07-2009 , he was in

hospital. He also stated that while on leave on medical grounds he cannot do any

official works and the papers on which he signed while in hospital during leave on

medical ground are official works. There was no instruction or order from the

Chairman in writing asking or directing him to sign papers while he was on leave

on medical grounds. Accused R.U. Barlaskar as D.W.-4 exhibited the reply he

received through RTI as regards the leave of P.W.-4 on 21-07-2009. Ext. S is the

reply dated 19-08-2011 received from Secretary and CPIO informing that no letter

of joining report was received from P.W.-4 on or before 21-07-2009 and no

medical fitness certificate was also received. D.W.-4 has sought information as

regard the leave of P.W.-4 on 21-07-2009 but the same was not provided to him

and only after appeal, the above information was provided to him. It has become

doubtful as to the presence of P.W.-4 in his office at the time of issuance of

sanction order Ext.31, Ext.32, Ext.33 and Ext.34.

It is also to be noted that P.W.-4 stated in his cross examination

that he was arrested by the CBI on allegation of demand of illegal gratification of

19

Rs.1,00,000/-; that one case is pending against him at the time of adducing

evidence in this case and that he do not remember if R.U.Borlaskar has filed any

writ petition No. 2404/2009 before the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, wherein he is

made respondent No.5 with the allegation that he had demanded Rs. 5,00,000/-

from R.U. Barlaskar. He also stated he has not seen the report of finger print

expert before issuing the sanction order.

P.W.-7 simply deposed of issuing the sanction order (Ext.44) after

considering the facts and circumstances of the case as placed before him. In his

cross, he stated that he cannot say how many buildings out of 23 were

constructed by R.U.Borlaskar; that total amount of construction of 23 buildings

was around Rs.27 lakhs but he cannot say the amount misappropriated by the

accused persons; that before issuing the sanction order he did not check the

muster roll vouchers of all 23 no. of buildings, except those produced by CBI; that

on the basis of reports furnished by I.O., he came to the conclusion that the

labourers who were paid through muster roll were not available; that he have no

idea as regards Sec 120B, 420, 468, 471, 477 IPC and Sec 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of

P.C.Act. and also 161 Cr.P.C.; that the sections mentioned in prosecution sanction

are not his versions and writings but prepared and drafted by Vigilance Section of

Brahmaputra Board and that he cannot say whether he signed Ext.44 with or

without applying his mind.

Defence counsel placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court reported in 2006 1 SCC 294 (Ramesh Lal Jain –vs- naginder

Singh Rana and others), 1997 7 SCC 622 (Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan –vs-

State of Gujrat), Crl. Appeal No. 2353 of 2010 (Nishant Sareen-vs- State of

Himachal Pradesh) reported in (2010) 14 SCC 527 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme

Court has stressed upon application of mind and in Nishant Sareen case (Supra)

discussed the object of Sec 19 of the P.C. Act which is to ensure that a public

servant does not suffer harassment on false, frivolous, concocted and

unsubstantiated allegation and relied on the judgement of Mansukhlal

Vithaldas(Supra) wherein it was observed “Sanction is an weapon to ensure

discouragement of frivolous and vexatious prosecution and is a safeguard of the

innocent but not a shield for the guilty”.

20

The day on which PW-4 issued the sanction order i.e. on

21.07.2009 he seems to be on leave on medical ground and without seeing the

finger print expert reports. PW-4 is not aware of the legal provisions of the Secs

mentioned in his report and PW-7 stated that he came to the conclusion that the

labourers who were paid through the muster roll sheets were not available on the

basis of report furnished by the I.O.. PW-7 cannot say the exact amount cheated

by the accused persons and he also cannot say whether he signed the Ext. 44 with

or without application of mind.

P.W.-10 in his cross states that the draft sanction

orders(Ext.44,Ext.31 to Ext.34) was drafted by the then Vigilance Officer Sailen

Talukdar and the respective Disciplinary Authority approved the draft .He also

stated that most probably the CBI (I.O.) helped the person who drafted the

Sanction orders. Being so, P.W.-4 and P.W.-7 appears to have not gone through all

the documents and not applied their mind for which P.W.-4 during leave signed

the Sanction order and P.W.-7 cannot say whether he applied his mind or not.

Sanction leaves the bar for prosecution. It is intended to protect the

public servant against frivolous and vexatious litigation. The Sanctioning authority

is to be apprised of all the relevant materials, and on such materials, the authority

has to take conscious decision as to whether the facts would reveal the

commission of an offence under the relevant provision.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in CBI –VS-Ashok Kumar Aggarwal

reported in AIR 2014 SC 827 held that Sanction leaves the bar for prosecution.

It is not an acrimonious exercise but a solemn and sacrosanct act which affords

protection to the Govt. Servant against frivolous prosecution. Further, it is a

weapon to discourage vexatious prosecution and it is safeguard for the innocent,

though not a shield for the guilty. There is an obligation for the sanctioning

authority to discharge its duty to give or withhold sanction only after having full

knowledge of the material facts of the case…….. The authority itself has to do

complete and conscious scrutiny of the whole record so produced by the

prosecution. Independently applying its mind and taking into consideration of all

the relevant facts before grant of sanction while discharging its duty to give or

withheld the sanction. The power to grant sanction is to be exercised keeping in

21

mind the public interest and protection available to the accused against whom the

sanction is sought.

From above it transpires that the prosecution sanction were not

only issued without going through all the relevant documents but also without

proper application of mind as well as it was without authority so far accused K.M.

Brahma and Gakul Borah are concerned. Being so the prosecution is bad for want

of valid sanction.

Another argument raised by the defence is delay in lodging the FIR

after 14 years of the completion of the work and the investigation was done in a

biased manner.

It is also submitted that the case has been registered by CBI out of

grudge against R.U. Barlaskar for lodging a complaint against CBI in Harang

Project.

Admittedly, the construction of house took place in between 1992-

94 and the same is mentioned in the FIR itself. The FIR was registered by one Sri

Ganesh Verma on 27-02-2007 on source information dated 21-02-2007. It shows

registration of FIR after 14 years of the completion of the project by these accused

persons. What is the source of information is not revealed and the person

registering the case i.e. Ganesh Verma is not a witness in this case and not

examined by the prosecution. The allegation in the FIR is fraud of very huge

amount whereas the charge sheet speaks of siphoning of Rs.39,430.50/- .Being

so, the FIR becomes doubtful not only by the delay but also by its contents.

Defence Counsel submitted that the delay in lodging the FIR is fatal

and relied upon the judgement of the Supreme Court (2014) 9 SCC 365

(Ramaiah @Rama -Vs-State of Karnataka), (2008) 15 SCC 582 (State of Andhra

Pradesh –Vs -Madhusudan Rao and 1983 3 SCC 629 (Ramji Surjya-Vs-State of

Maharashtra). Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramaiah’s Case(Supra) in Para 28 held in

the fact and circumstances of that case that the delay is seen as fatal when

examined in juxtaposition with other materials that has come on record and

discussed above, which shakes the veracity of the prosecution case, bringing it

within the four corners of doubtful prosecution story. In Madhusudan’s Rao

Case(Supra) , Hon’ble Supreme Court considering the fact and circumstances of

22

that case, opined that the circumstances raises considerable doubt regarding the

genuineness of the complaint and the veracity of the evidence of the witnesses,

rendering it unsafe to base the conviction.

The principle applied in the above two cases is applicable in this

case also going by the discussions already made above.

The fact and circumstances in Ramji Surjya’s Case (Supra) is quite

different than the instant case though there was also inordinate delay. That case

was based on the evidence of sole eyewitness. So the fact and circumstance of

that Ramji’s case is quite different from this case.

The investigation speaks of biasness of the CBI in as much as the

main accused G.P. Singh(D.W-1) and other two named accused Mintu Debnath

and N.I.Mazumdar are not charge sheeted and no reason has been given for non-

charge sheeting these accused persons. P.W.-18(I.O.) in his cross stated that G.P.

Singh issued order for supply of materials to 21 nos. of unregistered and fake firms

involving bill amount of Rs.1,65,045/- and Rs.1,95,468/- and he has not charge

sheeted the said accused. He also stated that the previous I.O. Sri S. Das has

submitted before the Chief Vigilance Officer of Brahmaputra Board for taking

departmental proceeding against the Executive Engineer and his seniors gave him

orders to submit charge sheet against only the charge sheeted accused persons.

This itself is sufficient to establish the biasness of investigating agency against

these accused persons leaving aside the fact that CBI only conducted investigation

as regards the 17 houses out of 23 constructed during the period of R.U. Barlaskar

and not the other 6 houses constructed during the period of P.W.-3.

It has also come in the evidence that during the initial stage of

construction work, CBI on some source information made some inquiry but did not

find anything against accused R.U. Barlaskar. Ext. K is the forwarding dated 09-11-

2009 of G.P. Singh(D.W.-1) whereby the information under RTI was provided to

the accused Jayanta Thakuria. Along with other documents, the documents at

page No.7 to 15 speaks of secret verification in the year 1994 as regards the

construction work at Lusaikhal and after inquiry, the inquiry has been closed, as

seen from the letter dated 08-11-1986 of SP,CBI (page 13 of Ext. K). The

document at Page no.15 of Ext. K is the departmental inquiry dated 29-08-1994

submitted by Superintending Engineer, Brahmaputra Board, Silchar whereby it has

23

been mentioned that after physical verification, the construction work at Lusaikhal

was found to be proper and the earning of money by R.U. Barlaskar through

muster roll was baseless and false. These documents were withheld by the CBI

during investigation.

The CBI being the Investigating Agency in this case and having

inquired in the same matter during the period of 1994-95 was supposed to be very

much aware of the earlier allegation and the findings thereof of no irregularity as

against the same accused R.U. Barlaskar. What transpired in between this 13 years

and what information and from whom the CBI received any such information of

irregularity in the same project is a mystery and the CBI has withheld the earlier

investigation report. This fact along with what has been discussed above creates a

doubt on the allegation made, investigation done and evidence led by the CBI.

Defence version is that the CBI and some other officers of the

Brahmaputra Board had a grudge against the accused R.U. Barlaskar for lodging a

complaint against them for misappropriation of Rs.2 Cr. of public money in the

year 2004 in respect of Harang Project at Silchar. In this regard, R.U. Barlaskar, as

D.W.-4 deposed that in connection with that irregularity, he was asked to make an

assessment report of the work executed and cost involved. Accordingly he

submitted a report on 20-01-2006 (Ext. C) mentioning that some officers of

Brahmaputra Board along with CBI Officers of N.E. region were involved in

misappropriation of Rs.1 Cr. Based on his assessment report, he submitted a

complaint (Ext. P) before the Chief Vigilance Officer, Brahmaputra Board on 22-03-

2006. He sought information through RTI application dated 27-10-2016 (Ext.V)

seeking copy of CVO letter dated 23-08-2006 through which the status of his

complaint (Ext. P) dated 22-03-2006 was intimated to him and accordingly vide

letter dated 28-10-2016 (Ext. W) the said CVO letter dated 23-08-2006 (Ext. X)

was forwarded to D.W.-4, wherein it was informed that departmental investigation

into the allegation as per representation dated 22-03-2006 has been initiated.

Ext. B is the public memorandum dated 21-05-2005 addressed to

the then Prime Minister Sri Manmohan Singh against Sri Inamul Islam, in-charge

General Manager, Brahmaputra Board for corrupt and illegal activities in respect of

Harang Project. P.W-17,I.O. stated in his cross that he investigated a case No. RC

2(A)/2005 and submitted charge sheet against accused R.U. Barlaskar and

24

during investigation of that case, he seized Ext. B from the possession of R.U.

Barlaskar and subsequently he returned it to him.

From above, it is seen that accused R.U. Barlaskar had made

complaint against some of the officers of Brahmaputra Board and CBI Officer of

N.E. Region for misappropriation of Rs.1 Cr. in respect of Harang Project and as

per Ext. X, the matter was under departmental investigation.

Summing up the above discussion, it transpires that the veracity

and source of the allegation of the delayed FIR is very much doubtful and

investigation biased. There was reason for the CBI and some officers of the

Brahmaputra Board to have grudges against the accused R.U. Barlaskar and

influence the lodging of FIR and investigation. Sanctioning authority also seems to

have been influenced as they have not gone through all the relevant documents

and has not applied their mind to consider the issuance of sanction and also had

no authority to issue the sanction order as against two accused namely K.M.

Brahma and Gakul Borah (since deceased). Furthermore, evidence not substantial

to sustain the charges.

In view of the forgoing discussion, and conclusion arrived that, it is

held that prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charges U/S 120B, 420,

468, 471, 477A IPC and Sec 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988 against the

accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused persons are acquitted of

the said charges and set at liberty forthwith.

Given under my hands and seal in this Court on the 31st December,

2016 at Guwahati.

DICTATED AND CORRECTED BY ME,

(B.K. Chetri) (B.K. Chetri) Special Judge, CBI, Assam, Special Judge, CBI, Assam, Additional CBI Court No.2, Additional CBI Court No.2, Chandmari, Guwahati-3. Chandmari, Guwahati-3.

25

A P P E N D I X

1) Prosecution Witnesses :-1. Munindra Prasad, Khalashi, Brahmaputra

Board,

2. Chand Mohan Das, Superintending Engineer,

Brahmaputra Board,

3. K.K. Bhagawati, AEE, Brahmaputra Board,

4. Amarjyoti Baruah, G.M., Brahmaputra Board

5. Ngamkhophang, Supervisor, Election branch,

Surachandpur, Manipur,

6. Lalvulmawi Amo, Village Chief of Patpuihmun,

Phulpui & Thingpuikuol, Mizoram,

7. Rajan Nair, Retd. Chairman, Brahmaputra Board,

8. H.L. Zarlien, Cultivator, Surachandpur, Manipur,

9. Hmusuokthar, Cultivator, Surachandpur,

Manipur,

10. Iltaf Hussain, Superintending Engineer-cum-

CVO, Brahmaputra Board,

11. Ral Kapthuof, Cultivator, Surachandpur,

Manipur,

12. Ebenezar, Cultivator, Surachandpur, Manipur,

13. Sagar Sarma, S.I., CID, Shillong,

14. Suhash Mitra, Deputy Superintendent, National

Crime Records Bureau, Kolkata,

15. Lalhmingthanga, U.D.C., o/o SDO, Civil,

Singhat, Manipur,

16. S.K. Chanda, retd. Scientific Officer, CFSL, CBI,

New Delhi,

17. M.T. Mang, DSP, CBI, ACB, Guwahati, (I.O.),

18. Atul Prasad Rai, Retd. Inspector of Police,

Assam, (I.O.),

19. Tridibeswar Das, S.P., CBI, (I.O.),.

26

2) Defence Witness :- 1. G.P. Singh, Superintending Engineer, Brahmaputra

Board, (Accused No.1 as per FIR, but not charge

sheeted)

2. Bijay Barman, Junior Engineer, Brahmaputra Board,

3. P.K. Khataniar, Retd. AEE, Brahmaputra Board,

4. R.U. Barlaskar (Accused).

3) Prosecution Exhibits :- Ext. 1 to Ext. 27 Muster Roll,

Ext. 28 & Ext. 29- Certificates of transfer of charge,

Ext. 30 - Order at 18-05-2009 appointing P.W.-4 as the Ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority for accused J.E.

Ext.31 to Ext. 34- Prosecution Sanction Order,

Ext. 35- Letter of D.C., Churachandpur to Inspector of Police, CBI forwarding the electoral rolls,

Ext. 36 to Ext. 42- Electoral rolls,

Ext. 43- Certificate of Chief of Vangaisuntuk Village stating non inhabitance of list of some persons,

Ext. 44- Sanction letter,

Ext.45 - Certificate of Chairman & Secretary of Sipuikawn Village stating non inhabitance of list of some persons,

Ext. 46 & Ext. 47- Forwarding letter dated 18.07.08 and 30.07.08 of I. Hussain, CVO to SP, CBI, Shillong giving details of employees,

Ext. 48- Certificate of Chairman, Lungthulien Village stating non inhabitance of list of some persons,

Ext. 49- Register of inhabitant of villages namely- Lungthulein, Rovakawat, Leisen, Sehmun, Hmarkhawpui (Sipuikawn), Senvawn, Sitam

27

and Parvachawm, Ext. 50- Certificate of Ebenezer Loitlang, Parbung Village headman stating non inhabitance of list of some persons,

Ext. 51- Specimen finger print of accused Jayanta Thakuria,

Ext. 52- Specimen finger print of accused Gakul Borah,

Ext. 53- Specimen finger print of accused K.M. Brahma,

Ext. 54- Specimen finger print of accused Anupam Nath,

Ext. 55- Finger print report,

Ext. 56- Forwarding letter of National Crime Records Bureau,

Ext. 57- Letter dated 05.11.07 by Lalhmingthanga, UDC, SDO’s office, Tipaimukh,

Ext. 58- Finger Print report,

Ext. 59 & Ext. 60- Annexure of Finger Print report(Ext. 58),

Ext. 61- Forwarding letter,

Ext. 62- Forwarding letter of finger print report,

Ext. 63- FIR,

Ext. 64- Forwarding letter,

Ext. 65- Charge sheet,

Ext. 66- Forwarding letter of Charge sheet,

Ext. 67 & Ext. 68- Seizure memo dated 17.05.07 &

12.04.07 respectively.

4) Defence Exhibits :- Ext. A- Information under RTI act,

Ext. B- Complaint/ Mass Public Memorandum,

Ext. C- Letter of R.U. Barlaskar to the Executive Engineer, Brahmaputra Board,

28

Ext. D & Ext. E- Office order of Brahmaputra Board,

Ext. F- Certificate of transfer of charge,

Ext. G- Officer order of Brahmaputra Board,

Ext. H- Memo of works under Jiribam Invt. Sub Division,

Ext. I- Officer order of Brahmaputra Board,

Ext. J- Notification of Brahmaputra Board,

Ext. K, Ext. L & Ext. M- Information under RTI Act,

Ext. N- Abstract of allocation of charge,

Ext. O- Handing over and taking over of charge,

Ext. P- Complaint of R.U. Barlaskar regarding wrongful loss to the public exechequer,

Ext. Q- RTI application,

Ext. R- Postal receipt,

Ext. S- Information under RTI Act dated 19.08.2011,

Ext. T- RTI application,

Ext. U- Forwarding letter of reply under RTI act with respect to RTI application dated 14.09.2013,

Ext. V- RTI application,

Ext. W- Forwarding of information under RTI act,

Ext. X- Information(Letter) received through RTI.

(B.K. Chetri) Special Judge, CBI, Assam, Additional CBI Court No.2,

Chandmari, Guwahati-3.

****************** 0