IN THE COURT OF SPECTAL JUDGE, ASSAM, GUWAHATI

SPECIAL CASE NO: 25l2o1i "

ARISING OUT OF ACB P. S. CASE NO 13/2017

UNDER SECTIoNS= 7 lL3 (2) OF P. C. ACT 1988

STATE OF ASSAM

vs.
DURGA RAM BARUAH

PRESENT:. DIPAK THAKURIA,BA, LLM, AJS.

SPECIAL JUDGE,
ASSAM.GUWAHATI.

APPEARANCES:. /

N. GOGOT, ADDTTTONAL SPECIAL p. p. FOR THE STATE.

P. KATAKY &
N. K. DAS, ADVS, FOR THE ACCUSED.

DATE(S) OF EVIDE NCE : - 17.0 2.2OL8, 24.04.201,8, 13.07. 2018,

23.08.2018, 26.1L.2Ot8, 27 .LL.aOLB, (
24.L2.2OL9, 29.0 1. 2019, 30.01.2019,
22.O2.2OL9, 25.02.2019, 18.03 .2OL9,
24.04.2019 | 24.O5.2OL9, 2L.O6.2OL9,
21.09.2019, 2L.L1.2O19 and
09.12.2019,

DATE OF ARGUMENT:. 10.11-2020.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:. 23.TI.2O2O.

J.UDGMENT
j

1. Accused Durga Ram Baruah stands trial for the offences punishable
UlS.7lL3(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for allegedly accepting
bribe and committed criminal misconduct being a public servant on

1t.04.2017.

tr,,r*/
Iudge'.Assa*
Spetial
Ctllrc''rajt
 2. Facts of the case, in brief, as appears from the ejahar are as follows: That on
L7.4.2077 complainant Golok Hazarika filed a written
ejahar before the
officer-in-charge cum superintendent of Police, ACB police^station, Assam
against accused Durga Ram Baruah stating that he (the complainant) is a

wholesaler of agriculture related fertilizer, seeds, pesticides etc. having a

business establishment under the name and style "Hazarika Joibya Bhandar"
and had applied for retail sale licences for fertilizer, seeds and pesticides in
the District Agriculture office located at ulubari, Guwahati. on 6.4.2017 the
accused Durga Ram Baruah who was the Agriculture Inspector visited his
placeof business and for issuing 3 nos. of license sought Rs.9,000/- from
him. He was not interested to pay the demanded money. But the accused
informed him that without paying money it would not be possible to issue
licenses.

3. After receiving the ejahar, the Officer-in-Charge of ACB / police cum

Superintendent of Police, Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, Assam, Guwahati
entrusted Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, Assam, Guwahati,
Sri Pinaki Prasad Mitra to enquire about the matLer and submit his report.
Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, Assam, Pinakit prasad Mitra
enquired the matter as directed and submitted his report stating that accused
(
Durga Ram Baruah demanded bribe by abusing his official position. After
receivingthe report, the officer-in-Charge, ACB Police Station registered a
case as ACB P.S, Case No,1312017 Uls.7lt3(l)(d)ll3(2) of Prevention of

ffiffi
Corruption Act, 1988.

4. After registration of the case, a trap team was constituted. The trap team
prepared pre trap memorandum and proceeded to the place of occurrence
and as and when accused Durga Ram Baruah demanded and received the
bribe money, the tiap team apprehended the accused and arrested him. On
1214120L7 the accused was produced before this Court after arrest. The
Investigating officer had recorded the statements of witnesses and seized
the tainted money and other articles. Sent the seized money and other

I'"\-f
luCge'.lssa61
Soecial
' Gilu'c'trllt
 afticles to DFSL, Guwahati for forensic examination, received the report from
DFSL, Kahilipara, Guwahati and also obtained Prosecution sanction order
against the accused under section 19 of P. c. Act, 1988 frornicout. of Assam.
The Investigating officer by completing the investigation submitted charge
sheet against accused Durga Ram Baruah to prosecute against him
UlS.7lL3(1)(dy13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

5, On completion of statutory period, accused Durga Ram Baruah was granted

bail.

After filing the charge-sheet, one of my Ld. Predecessors was pleased to take
cognizance of the case against accused Durga Ram Baruah
UlS.7l13(1)(dy13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 19BB and issued court
process to him. After receiving the couft process, accused, Durga Ram
Baruah appeared before this Court and he was allowed to remain on previous
bail.

7. Copies were furnished to the accused as per law. One of my Ld. Predecessors
after hearing both the parties and perusal the materials on case record and (
case diary was pleased to frame a formal charge against accused Durga Ram
Baruah UlS.7l13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Charge so
framed was read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried,

ffiffi 8. The prosecution has examined 77 (seventeen) prosecution witnesses

including the Forensic Expeft, the officer who granted Prosecution Sanction
and the Investigating Officer and closed the evidence.

9. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused

was recorded u/s 313 Cr. P. C. by putting questions to him from all
incriminating evidence appearing against him on record and thereby giving

Y Jil.d /ssom
ludge' .
SPcciol
Gurtaholt
 him an oppoftunity to meet the same. In response to which, the accused
denied the allegations as well as evidence on record; but examined one
witness in defence.

10. Heard argument advanced by learned counsels appearing for the pafties and
perused the evidence on record.

DETERMINATION:

Whether accused Durga Ram Baruah on 6.4.2017 while he was working in

the capacity of Agriculture Inspector and being a public seruant demanded
an amount of Rs.9,000/- as bribe other than legal remuneration from
complainant Golok Hazarika in order to give 3 nos. of llcense to the
complainant and in pursuance of the aforesaid demand he accepted an
amount of Rs.7,000/- from the complainant on 11.4.2017 and thereby he
is liable to be punished U/5,7 of Prevention of Corruption Act,19BB ?

Whether accused Durga Ram Baruah on the same date, time and place by
abusing his position as public seruant received a sum of Rs.7,000/- from \

the complainant Golok Hazarika and thereby committed an offence of

criminal misconduct punishable U/5.13(2) of Prevention of Coruption Act,
1988 ?

Discussions on the points for determination and

decision arrived thereon with reasons.

11. In order to establish the charge framed against accused Durga Ram Baruah,
the prosecution has examined altogether 17 (seventeen) witnesses, Among
them PW.1 Golok Hazarika is the complainant , PW.2 Bangshidhar Kalita is the
District Agriculture Officer, PW.3 Sri Nripen Sarma is the shadow witness,

?,r4'\
lssam
sp,.i,til!,7,1,;0,
 I

PW.5 Sri Biju Kalita, PW.7 Sri Ranjit Sinha, PW.14 Sri Utpal Thawmong, are
the police constables of Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, Assam, Guwahati, PW.6
Sri Ajay Kr. Patowary is the Agriculture Inspector, PW.8 Smt.'Nandini Deka is
the DSP of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Sri Binod Ch. Barman & PW.10,

Pinaki Prasad Mitra are the Inspectors of Police, Vigilance & Anti-Corruption ,

Assam, Guwahati, PW.11 Jiten Das is an ASI of Police, PW.12 Dr. Rupali
Bhattacharya is the Scientific officer, PW.13 Sri Mahendra Mohan Patowary is
the independent witness, PW.15 Sri Karuna Bordolai, is the TLO, PW.16 Smt.
Juri Phukan, is the Secretary, Agriculture Department, Assam and PW.17 Sri
Sukumar Sinha is the Investigating Officer.

12. Accused Durga Ram Baruah has examined one Nabajyoti Jaganath as D.W,1.

13. Learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor has submitted that accused who
was an inspector in the Office of District Agriculture Office situated at Ulubari
demanded an amount of Rs 9,000lfrom the complainant Golok Hazarika for
renewal of three licences, The complainant was not interested to pay the
demanded money and informed the matter to the Vigilance and Anti-
corruption Office and filed written complaint. The vigilance and anti-

({ffi corruption office laid trap and when the accused accepted an amount of
7,0001 from the complainant in his office, caught him red handed, recovered
Rs.
\

the bribe money from the pocket of the accused, the hand wash solution of
the accused turned into pink which shows that the accused received
phelonopthelen powder mixed tainted notes, The witnesses examined by the
prosecution supported the case of the prosecution. The prosecution is able to
establish that the accused demanded an amount of Rs. 9,000/ from the
complainant and subsequently he received an amount of Rs. 7,000/ which
was illegal gratification. The accused being a public servant misused his
position and receirled bribe from the complainant. The case against accused
under section 7 and 13 (2) of PC Act is fully established and hence prayed to
hold the accused guilty under charge sheeted sections and after convicting
him impose adequate punishment to him as per law.

d rU\/
se,,,,!r];;!fii,;r,:"o'
 I

14. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the defence has submitted
that the accused is a sincere and honest service holder. Th'e domplainant had
to renew three licenses and approached to the accused with his documents.
The accused after verification of the documents informed the complainant
that legal fees of three licenses was Rs. 9,000/ i.e. Rs. 3,000/ each of the
licence. The complainant was under impression that the fees of licenses were
Rs. 100/ of each license. The complainant perhaps was unaware about the
enhancement of the fees. On the day of the alleged incident the complainant
handed over Rs. 7,0001as part of fees of licenses and assured him that rest
amount of Rs. 2,0001 be paid later, on good faith the accused accepted Rs.

7,0001 as licence fees and in the meantime he was apprehended by anti-

corruption officials. The recovered amount was not bribe money; but it was
fees which the complainant handed over to him. The entire case was the
misunderstanding of facts. Besides it after filing the ejahar by the
complainant, the vigilance officer did not conduct the preliminary enquiry as
per law. The enquiry officer (P. W. 10) did not visit the office of the accused.
He simply in the back page of the ejahar gave a cryptic repoft that he verified
the allegation against the accused. If the vigilance officer performed his duty
sincerely he would have been come to the actual fact and there would not (
have been registered a regular case against the accused. The prosecution
has failed to establish the charges against the accused and as such accused
deserve acquittal with honour.

15. Before we proceed, let us reproduce the material parts of the depositions of
the witnesses examined by the prosecution during trial and the deposition of
defence witness.

15.1 PW.1 GolokiHazarika

,!
is the complainant. He has deposed that he has
a firm in the name and style as "Hazarika Jaibya Bhandar" and he has
been doing this business since 2014. He has also possessed one
wholesale license for selling feftilizers, seeds and pesticides etc. On
3.4.20L7 he came to the District Agriculture Office situated at Ulubari,

r^r$ e, lssom
,,n"d :;l i'
r!r'r',,Cr',",
 Guwahati to apply for retail sale license for three items i.e. fertilizers,
seeds and pesticides and on that day he met the accused Durga Ram
Baruah, the then Inspector of Agriculture in tliat" office and the
accused told him that he has to deposit challan for the retail sale
license for selling of seeds, feftilizers and pesticides items etc. Then
on 4.4.20L7 he had deposited the said challan with the accused Durga
Ram Baruah who passed the said challan and asked him to come to
the office on 6.4.20t7. On 6.4.2017 he had submitted his application
along with two nos. of challans before the then Inspector of
Agriculture, accused Durga Ram Baruah. Then accused told him that
he would verifo his business firm. Then the accused came along with
him to his firm and after verification of his firm the accused told him
that he had to pay Rs.9,000/- along with a sum of Rs.500/- being the
fare of the vehicle which he took to his firm from his office. Then he
paid the fare of the vehicle of Rs.500/- to the accused but he (PW.1)
refused to give Rs.9,000/- to the accused as demanded by him. When
he (P. W. 1) asked the accused as to why he needed Rs.9,000/- then
the accused told him that he had to give some portion of Rs.9,000/-
to his senior officers and when he (PW.l) refused to give Rs.9,000/-
as demanded by the accused, then the accused told him that he (
should come to his office and hand over Rs.9,000/'to him to get his
license. Accused Durga Ram Baruah illegally demanded Rs.9,000/-
from him for issuance of the said license, as such, he came to the
office of Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, Assam, Guwahati and filed an
ejahar on 11,4.2017. Ext. 1 is the F.LR and Ext.1 (1) is his signature.
Ext. 2 is the printed form of F.I.R and Ext. 2 (1) is his signature. On
LL.4.20L7 as per instruction of the members of the trap team of
Vigilance
f' Anti-Corruption, Assam, Guwahati, he contacted the
accused Dwga Ram Baruah over phone and requested him to take
lesser amount. But the accused refused to accept the lesser amount
except his demanded money. Then the vigilance officials asked him to
produce the amount which he brought along with him and handed

t,t\{
:?\
) Assam
Srericl
7,,att'
'G urr;llai t.
 over an amount of Rs.7,500/- to the vigilance team which contains 3
nos. of 2000 rupee currency note and 2 nos. Of 500 rupee currency
note. The extra Rs.500/- which was produced bdfole the vigilance
team was returned back to him for his expenses. One of the members
of the trap team had mixed some chemical powder over the said
currency notes which he (PW.l) handed over to him. Thereafter, a
demonstration of laying trap was displayed before them and then the
hand washed solution was collected into a bottle and sealed the
same, Thereafter, the said chemically treated amount of Rs.7,000/-
was kept in his hand bag and also asked him not to touch the said
to hand over the
chemically treated amount and fufther asked him
said amount to the accused Durga Ram Baruah only when it was
demanded by the accused person. In this regard, a Pre Trap
Memorandum was prepared. Ext. 7 is the Pre Trap memorandum and
Ext,7 (1) and Ext.7 (2) are his signatures. He, thereafter, along with
other members of the trap team proceeded to the office of District
Agriculture Officer, Ulubari, Guwahati where the accused Durga Ram
Baruah was working as Inspector of Agriculture. He along with one of
the members of the trap team entered into the office room of the
accused Durga Ram Baruah and asked the accused whether the
\
license for which he applied was ready for delivery. Then the accused
asked him whether he'brought the money as demanded by him for
issuance of his license and then he (P. W. 1) stated that the money as
demanded by him was with him and accordingly, he brought out the
money from his black coloured hand bag and handed over the same
to the accused Durga Ram Baruah. Thereafter, the accused after
taking the amount put the same into the right side pocket of his
wearing trouser. In the meantime, the member who was along with
I
him came out from the office room qf the accused Durga Ram Baruah
and gave signal to the other members of the trap team. On getting
his signal, all the members of the trap team came inside the office
room of the accused and introduced themselves to be the personnel

I/'l/
spu,id
Assam

cl,!,'.i,:,:,,
 I

of Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, Assam, Guwahati. One of the members

of the trap team caught hold of the hands of the accused and then
the accused brought the money from the right si{e pocket of his

trouser. Thereafter, the members of the trap team asked the accused
to immerse the fingers of his both hands into the hand washed water
solution which were poured in two separate bowls. Accordingly, the
accused immersed the fingers of his right hand into one bowl of hand
washed water solutions. As soon as the accused immersed the fingers
of his right hand into the hand washed solution it turned into pink

colour. Then the handkerchief which was also brought out from the
right side pocket of the trouser of the accused was also immersed into
the another bowl of hand washed water solution and that solution
also turned into pink colour. Thereafter, the right side inside pocket of
the trouser of the accused Durga Ram Baruah also immersed in

another bowl of hand washed water solution and that also turned into
pink colour. Thereafter, the I.O of the case had seized the tainted
amount of Rs,7,000/- and the aforesaid hand washed water solution
poured into four different bottles and seized and sealed the same in
his presence. Ext. Ext.S is the seizure list and Ext.s (2) is his
signature. M.Ext.s is the right hand washed water solution and
(
M.Ext.S (2) is his signature; M.Ext.6 is the left hand washed water
solution and M.Ext.6 (2) is his signature, M.Exts.8, 9, 10, 11 and 12
are tainted currency notes. The I.O of the case had again seized 3
nos. of items vide the Seizure List Ext.3 and Ext.3 (2) is his signature.
M.Ext.l and M. Ext. 2 are the right side pocket of the trouser and the
handkerchief of accused respectively and M.Ext.1(2) is his signature.
M.Ext.3 is the envelope wherein the said handkerchief was sealed and
sealed and M.Ext.3 (2) is his signature. After completion of the Pre
Trap memorandum, another Memorandum i.e. Post Trap
memorandum was prepared. Ext. 8 is the Post Trap memorandum
and Ext.8 (1) and Ext.8 (2) are his signatures. The I.O of the case had
also seized one File and took his signature as a witness. Ext.4 is the

rfl'r
''' ',',.,; A;san
9

.SPr'":':'
(r[ll\'-;u'''
 said Seizure list wherein Ext.4 (2) is his signature. M.Ext.4 is the said
File wherein his application forms for obtaining license were kept, He
had applied for retail business license for business of pesticides, seeds
and fertilizers. Rs.100/- is fees for pesticides challan and for fertilizer
no challan was required as told by the accused. At the time of filing
the application form for license one has to submit necessary relevant
documents viz. Pen Card, Trade License, Business of Trade for
product list of Company along with requisite Challan. M.Ext.4 (1) is his
said Application Form along with the documents for license of fetilizer
business and M.Ext.4 (2) is his signature. M.Ext.4 (3) is the
application form for license of pesticides business and M,Ext.4 (4) as
his signature; M.Ext.4(5) is his Application Form for license of seeds
business and M.Ext.4(6) is his signature. As per requirement and
instruction by the accused, he had submitted the aforesaid documents
along with his application form, M,Ext.4 (7) is the original Treasury
Challan, M.Ext,4 (B) is the duplicate copy of Treasury Challan and
M.Ext.4 (9) and M.Ext.4 (10) are his signatures. M.Ext.4 (11) is the
original Treasury Challan, M.Ext.4 (12) is the duplicate copy of
Treasury Challan, M.Ext.4 (13) and M.Ext.4 (14) are his signatures. At
first he had submitted the aforesaid challans before the accused and \
the accused deposited.the same to the Head of Account by affixing
his sign and seal therein and thereafter it was sent to Treasury for
acceptance. In that away, he deposited Rs.100/- at State Bank of
India, Dispur Branch and thereafter, the two copies of the Challans
were returned back to him by keeping the remaining triplicate copy of
Challan at State Bank of India, Dispur Branch.
15.2 During cross-examination, PW.1 has deposed that on 03.04.2017 he
collected the Application Form for obtaining Retail License of
fertilizers, seeds and pesticides. He already had Wholesale Licence for
fertilizers and at present he does not have any Wholesale License
though he applied for Renewal of License. On 04,04.2017 it took

about one hour to deposit the payment for challan at SBI, Dispur

a r\-d * o
10

,0,,, A "
Jij,ool,lo;,,^
-
Branch. The procedure for deposit of Challan in general is that they
use to fill up the challan form after enquiring the proper head of
deposit from the office of Agriculture, Ulubari who thereafter passed
the same, thereafter the same is produced before the Treasury Office
and after being passed from the Treasury the amount is deposited in
the State Bank of India. The Treasury Office is located at the
compound of Dispur Secretariat and the SBI, Dispur Branch is located
opposite to Dispur Secretariat. He has not found rash on the date of
depositing the challan amount at SBI, Dispur Branch. On 04.04.17 he
met the accused Durga Ram Baruah at around 11.00 a.m. in his

office. On 04.04.L7 at around 4.00 p.m. he deposited the challan for

pesticides after passing from the bank at Agriculture Office in the
hands of accused Durga Ram Baruah. On 05.04.2017 he deposited
the challan for seeds after passing from the bank at Agriculture office
in the hands of accused Durga Ram Baruah. He had to'visit the Bank
for 2 (two) days and on 06.04.2017. Accused demanded Rs, 9,000/
only from him. PW.1 has denied the suggestion that accused Durga
Ram Baruah had stated to him on 06.04.2017 that the License fees

for pesticides, seeds and feftilizers has been enhanced for the year
20L7-t8. PW.1 has further denied the suggestions that accused Durga
\
Ram Baruah stated that the License fees for Retail pesticides is
enhanced to Rs. 7,5001 and for Wholesale fertilizers it is enhanced to
Rs, 1,500/ and for seeds the license fees was stated as Rs. 100/.
PW.l has further denied the suggestion that accused Durga Ram
Baruah demanded Rs. 9,000/ only from him for License fees. PW.l
has further deposed in cross-examination that in M.Ext.4 (3), in the
Application Form for License for Pesticides he had not deposited Rs.

7,5001. He has deposed that it is the duty of the Inspector to visit the
)
Office, Godpwn of the person applying for license. In M.Ext.4 (1), in
the Application Form for License of Fertilizers there is tick mark in
Wholesale License and Retail License, however, he had not put tick
mark for Wholesale License. PW.1 has further deposed that during his

11
5alx
,rr'''[#}:[
 examination in Chief he had not stated that he has not put tick mark
for Wholesale Dealer License. He has further depos,gd that with his
Application Form for Fetilizers license he had not deposited Treasury
Challan of Rs. 1500/-. PW.1 has further denied the suggestion that as
he had not deposited the challan with his Forms, accused Durga Ram
Baruah stated that he would help him in depositing the challans as for
his mistakes he had to visit the Bank for two occasions. PW.1 has
fufther deposed that with his Application Forms he had deposited
principal certificates, but he had not deposited any land documents as
no land documents was asked. In the office room where Durga Ram
Baruah used to work seven/ eight stafis worked in the same room.
PW.l has further deposed that he had not lodged any written
complaint to the superior of Durga Ram Baruah after Durga Ram
Baruah demanded money. He had given the demanded money to
accused in his office room. After receiving the bribe money of Rs.
70001- the accused asked for another Rs, 500/- from him. PW.l has
denied the suggestion that he has deposed falsely that the accused
had demanded another Rs. 500/- from him .PW.1 has denied the
suggestion that in his F.LR., 161 Cr.P.C. statement and in his

examination in chief he has not stated that accused demanded \

another Rs. 500/- frorn him after receipt of bribe amount of Rs.
70001-. PW.1 has further deposed that during telephonic conversation
with the accused he requested him to take lesser amount from him,
but he denied the suggestion that he refused to receive lesser amount
than the demanded amount. PW.1 has further denied the suggestion
that he had forcefully given Rs. 7,OOO/ to the accused on his table and
he had given the money to the accused while he was sitting in his
chair with f.'lis table. PW.1 has deposed that he has not made any RTI
I

application to know the exact License Fees of Feftilizers Licence,

Seeds License and Pesticides License. PW.1 has denied the suggestion
that he has deposed falsely that Durga Ram Baruah stated to him that
no license is required for fertilizers. PW.1 has further denied the

1.2

*,"'''r,.;,$t"'
 suggestion that Durga Ram Baruah had not stated to him that he has
to give some portion of Rs. 9,000/ to his senior also...He has deposed
that in his 161 Cr. P.C. statement he has not stated that the Vigilance
Team had returned Rs. 500/- to him after he produced Rs. 7500/-
before them for laying the trap. During further cross-examination,
PW.l has deposed that so far his knowledge goes the license fees
was not enhanced when he came earlier for deposition. PW.1 has
deposed that it is a fact that on 27.72.77 he had deposited a challan
of Rs.7,500/- for license of pesticides. He deposited the above money
for wholesale license of pesticide. The challan did not mention the
word "wholesale", it mentions about "Dealer". In the above challan
the word "Dealer" was stuck out and mentioned as "Retailer". PW.1

has deposed that it is a fact that on 27.72.17 he had deposited 2 nos.

of challans of for fertilizer license. On 7.3.19 he
Rs.500/- each
deposited Rs.650/- through challan for fertilizer. PW.1 has further
denied the suggestion that he concealed regarding the enhancement
of fertilizer and pesticide license fees. PW.1 has further denied the
suggestion that at the time of his previous deposition on 77.2,18,
24.4.L8 and 13.7.18 he deposed falsely regarding non enhancement
of license fees in spite of depositing license fees at the enhanced rate \
of Rs.7500/- on 27.12.17. He deposited Rs.7500/- on 27.12.77 for
wholesale license of pesticide. PW.1 has further deposed that as per
advice of SDO, Haque he had mentioned in the challan the word
"Retailer" in place of "Dealer" of Pesticide License as his wholesale
license would have expired by then. By the said challan he had
deposited Rs.7500/- on 27.72.2017.
15.3 PW,2 Sri Bangshidhar Kalita was working as the District Agriculture
Officer on the day of Incident. He has has deposed that on 1L.4.2017
a trap team,of Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, Assam, Guwahati came to
his office chamber and told him that one incident occurred in their
office and requested him to come to the Inspectors' room of thEir
office along with them. Accordingly, he rushed to the Inspectors'

,/ 13
4U N'
^'|\\
Iudge' Ac\o?''
SPeciol
Guwc!n:i
 room wherein the Inspector of Agriculture were functioning their
official works. When he reached the Inspectors' Room then he was
asked by the members of the trap team to observe the procedure of
laying trap against the corrupt official, During that time, one of the
members of the trap team asked accused Durga Ram Baruah to
immerse the fingers of his hand (right or left hand which he could not
distinctly remember on the day of his deposition). As a result of
immersion of the fingers of the hand of the accused Durga Ram
Baruah into the hand washed solution, the colour was changed. As far
as he remembered that the accused Durga Ram Baruah was asked to
put both the fingers of his hands into the water solution in two
different bowls and when the accused did so as per direction of the
vigilance team, the colour of one of the solutions was changed while
the other remained as same and thereafter, the currency notes
recovered from the accused was tallied with the notes noted earlier
and found the said currency notes tallied with the numbers of notes
noted in a separate sheeG of paper. Thereafter, the water solution
were sealed and packed in his presence. Police had seized three items
vide the seizure list Ext.3 and Ext.3(1) is his signature. M.Ext.1 is the
handkerchief washed solution bottle and M.Ext.1(1) is his signature.
(
M.Ext,2 is the handkerchief of the accused Durga Ram Baruah,,
M.Ext,3 is the envelope where the said M.Ext.2 was packed and
sealed and M.Ext.3 (1) is his signature. On the same day police had
seized one File vide the seizure list Ext.4 and Ext.4(1) is his signature,
On the same day police had given in zimma of the said File to him
and he brought the said file (M.Ext.4) on the day of his deposition.
After recovery of the tainted money/ police had seized two nos. of
water solution bottles. After recovery of the tainted money and the
water solution bottles those afticles were sealed and seized by the
vigilance team vide the seizure list under Ext.5 and Ext.5 (1) is his
signature. M.Ext,5 is the right hand washed water solution and
Ext.5(1) is his signature. M.Ext.6 is the left hand washed water
I
? y'"w
t4

Special Iudge' Assam

Gtrtlclati
 solution wherein M,Ext.6(1) is his signature. M.Ext.7 is the envelope
where the tainted money was sealed wherein, M.fxt.Z1t; is his
signature. M.Exts. B, 9, 10, 11, and L2 are the said tainted money
which were recovered from the possession of accused Durga Ram

Baruah. Ext.6 is the Zimma Nama by which he took zimma of the said
official File and Ext.6(1) is his signature,
75.4 In his cross-examination, PW.2 has deposed that his office chamber
and the office room of accused Durga Ram Baruah are separate. He
knew that the complainant Golok Hazarika had filed the instant
complaint against one of his office staffs namely Durga Ram Baruah
and during the time of incident, accused Durga Ram was working as
Inspector of Agriculture in the office of District Agriculture officer,
Ulubari, Guwahati. PW.2 has further deposed that the duty of the
Inspector of Agriculture is to inspect and verify tl'ie documents
submitted by the applicant seeking license for doing the business in
seeds, feftilizers and pesticides and on the date of incident he came
to know that the complainant Golok Hazarika applied for license for
doing retail as well as wholesale business of seeds, fertilizers and
pesticides. PW.2 has further deposed that at the time of submitting
(
the application for license, challan is required to be submitted along
with the application. For the pesticides license, the challan of Rs.100/-
was required in the year 2016 but from the month of March,
20L7 the license for pesticide business was enhanced to Rs.7,500/-
maximum. For Fertilizers business, the license fees was Rs,1,500/-.
During that time, the license fees for seeds business was Rs,100/-.
Prior to the alleged incident, the complainant Golok Hazarika had
never filed any writtqn complaint before him against the accused. On
being ask6d regarding the incident, accused Durga Ram Baruah
informed him that Rs,7,000/- was taken from the complainant for
challan and he sought another amount of Rs.2,000/- from the
complainant for challan. The challans are required to be submitted
along with the application for license. PW.2 has further deposed that

,J
15
, ",1\o\ Assam
Sperial ludge,
Guv'ahati
 the sub Divisional Agriculture officer is the issuing authority of the
license for retailer business and in case of wholesale business for
seeds, fertilizers and pesticides, the Director, Agriculture, Assam is the
issuing authority but an inspector is not the issuing authority of
license. PW.2 has further deposed that he had not seen any challan in
M.Ext,7 showing that the complainant Golok Hazarika had submitted
Rs.7,500 and Rs.1,500/- as required for obtaining license of fertilizers
and pesticides. PW.2 has further deposed that if any applicant who
applies for license does not pay the required fees then he cannot be
granted the license.
15.5 PW.3 sri Nripen sarma is the shadow witness. He has deposed that
on 11.04.2017 he was serving as Inspector of police, BIEO, Guwahati
and on that day he was asked to report to Dy. Superintendent of
Police, Karuna Bordoloi of Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, Assam,
Guwahati and accordingly, on that day he reported to Dy. S.p. Karuna
Bordoloi after 12.00 a.m. He was accompanied by Mahenda Mohan
Patowary, Inspector of Police, BIEO and after reaching the office of
Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, Assam, Guwahati they came to know that
they were made members of a trap team to lay trap in the office of
District Agriculture Office, R,K. Mission Road, Ulubari, Guwahati. In \
the office of Vigilance &.Anti-Corruption, Assam, Guwahati, they were

# assembled in the chamber of Dy. S.P. Karuna Bordoloi where he met

Karuna Bordoloi, Dy. S.P. Nandini Deka, Inspector pinaki Mitra,
Inspector Sukumar Sinha, complainant Golok Hazarika, ASI Jiten Das
and about 4 constables whose names he could not recollect, They
were informed that Golok Hazarika lodged a complaint regarding
demand of bribe by one official of District Agriculture Office and they
had to assist in laying the trap to catch the accused red handed. The
trap money was furnished by the complainant Golok Hazarika which
was treated with phenolphthalein powder and thereafter, the said
G.C. Notes were given to the complainant in his hand bag asking the
complainant not to touch the tainted money and to give the said

t^,\-d
Judge' Assam
16

Special
Guw'cll,att '
 tainted money only on being demanded by the accused person.
Thereafter the demonstrator had dipped his hands. in the solution of
water which turned into pink colour. The hand waShdb water solution
of the demonstrator was seized. M. Ext. 13 is the bottle where hand
washed solution of the demonstrator was seized and M. Ext. 13 (1) is
his signature. A Pre Trap Memorandum was prepared at the office of
Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, Assam, Guwahati Assam where he put his
signature. Ext.7 is the pre-trap memorandum and Ext. 7(3) and Ext.
7(4) are his signatures. After preparation of Pre Trap Memorandum
they went to the office of District Agriculture Office, R. K. Mission

Road, Ulubari, Guwahati and reached the office at around 3.00 p.m.
and he was with the complainant. When the complainant entered into
the office room of accused Durga Ram Baruah, he was following the
complainant and had seen the complainant talking with the accused
person, gave the bribe amount to the accused and the accused after
looking into right-left kept the bribe amount on the right side trouser
pocket. Thereafter he had given the prefixed signal to Inspector
Mahendra Mohan Patowary and within a short time all the trap
members entered into the office chamber of Durga Ram Baruah and
the identity of the accused person was asked by team leader Karuna \
Bordoloi and the accused was asked to wash his right hand fingers in
the solution of sodium carbonate with water. The colour of the

6I solution immediately turned into pink after Durga Ram Baruah put his
fingers in that solution. His left hand fingers were also washed in the
B solution of sodium carbonate with water but the colour of the solution
did not change. The hand washed solutions of both hands of accused
were seized in bottles. M. Ext. 5 and M.Ext.6 are the bottle where
right hand
rwashed Water solution and left hand washed solution of
the accused were kept and M. E)C. 5 (3) and M.Ext.6 (3) are his
signatures. On being asked accused Durga Ram Baruah stated that he
has kept the tainted money in his trouser pocket. At that time the TLO
asked him (PW.3) to bring out the tainted money from the trouser

?'r\d
Special ludge, Assam
t7

Guv'alnti'
 pocket of the accused and when he (PW.3) approached to the
accused, the accused himself brought out the tainted money from the
right side trouser pocket. The serial numbers of the tainted money
which was recovered from the right side trouser pocket of the
accused was tallied with the serial numbers of G.C. notes mentioned
in the Pre- Trap Memorandum and the same tallied with each other.
M, Ext, B to M. Ext. 12 are the said tainted notes and the tainted
money were kept in an envelope and sealed. M. Ext. 7 as the said
is his signature. The handkerchief of
envelope and M. Ext. 7(2)
accused Durga Ram Baruah was also washed in the solution of
sodium carbonate with water which turned into pink colour. M.Ext.2
is the handkerchief. M.Ext.1 is the handkerchief washed water
solution which was kept in a bottle and marked as "E". M.Ext.3 is the
envelope where the handkerchief was seized and M. Ext. 3 (3) is his
signature. Vide Ext. 3, the Investigating Officer had seized M.Ext.1,
M.Ext,2 and M.Ext.4 (Mobile Handset) and Ext. 3 (2) is his signature.
Vide Ext.5, the Investigating Officer had seized the bottle of right
hand washed water solution, bottle of left hand washed water solution
and the tainted notes and Ext.5 (2) is his signature. One Post Trap
Memorandum was prepared at the office Chamber of the accused in \
the office of the District Agriculture Office vide Ext. 8. and Ext. B (3)
and Ext. B (4) are his signatures. One Office file was also seized from
the accused Durga Ram Baruah vide the seizure list Ext.4 and Ext.
4(2) is his signature. M. Ext. 4 is the said office file. On the same day
two mobile handsets were seized from the complainant Golok
Hazarika vide the seizure list Ext.9 and Ext. 9 (1) is his signature, On
that day the accused Durga Ram Baruah was arrested by the LO, at
around 5.1Q/5.15 p.nl. PW.3 has fufther deposed that the accused
had demanded Rs. 9,000/- from the complainant and Rs. 7,000/- was
given on the day of occurrence as bribe amount.
15.6 in his cross-examination, PW.3 has deposed that his statement was
recorded in connection with this case. In the office room where the

,{
'\ 18

il,/t'
Special Iudge, lssam
Gul*'chati
 occurrence took place there were 7l B office staffs. The office room
was the hall type room measuring about 15 x 40 ^ft. The nearest
colleague of the accused was at a distance of about 4 ft. pw.3 has
further deposed that he had not heard the conversation that taken
place between the accused and the complainant on the day of
occurrence. He came to know regarding the demand of bribe from the
complainant and the TLo in the office of Vigilance & Anti-corruption,
Assam. PW.3 has denied the suggestion of defence that the accused
stated before them that the money recovered was in respect of
challan money for obtaining license, pw.3 has further deposed that
the accused received the money while sitting in his table and at that
time other staffs were also present in the room. pw.3 has futher
deposed that he does not know the amount of fees required for
obtaining license of Pesticides and Seeds. ,

75.7 PW.4 sri Bipul Rabha, constable of Vigilance & Anti-corruption,

Assam, Guwahati being one of the trap team members has deposed
that on 17.04.7207 he was working as constable in the Vigilance &
Anti-corruption, Assam and on that day in morning after coming to
the office he came to know that he had been made a member of a
trap team. At around 1.00 pm. they assembled in the office chamber \
of TLo Karuna Bordoloi. other trap team members, the complainant
and two other independent witnesses also assembled in the office
chamber of rlo Karuna Bordoloi and Dy, superintendent of police,

Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, Assam, Smti. Nandini Deka was the

demonstrator. The complainant gave Rs. 7,0ool- to the demonstrator
consisting of 3 Nos, of Rs. 2,000/- denomination notes and 2 Nos. of
Rs. 500/- denomination notes. The demonstrator smeared
phenolphthalein powder to the said notes and thereafter washed her
hands in a water solution prepared with sodium carbonate for which
the colour of the water solution turned into pink. The hand washed
water solution of the demonstrator was poured in a clean botUe and
sealed. M. Ext. 13 is the bottle containing the hand washed water

rA"\/
Spericl .ludge, a.tsqm
19

6etir'*'trlii
 solution of the demonstrator and M. Ext. 13(2) is his signature.
Thereafter the demonstrator put the tainted money in the hand bag
of the complainant with a direction not to touch the tainted money
unless demanded by the accused. Pre Trap Memorandum was
prepared in their office and the TLO read over the contents of the Pre
Trap Memorandum to them and thereafter they all put their
signatures in the Pre Trap Memorandum. Ext.7 is the pre-trap
memorandum and Ext. 7(5) and Ext. 7(6) are his signatures. The
facsimile of the brass office seal is annexed in a separate sheet which
is attached with the Pre Trap Memorandum and Ext. 7(6) is the
signature on the separate sheet with the facsimile of brass seal.
Thereafter at around 2.30 p.m. they proceeded to the Agriculture
office situated at Ulubari, Guwahati, The complainant and another
person entered into the office of the accused person and they were
waiting outside the office. After sometime the person accompanying
the complainant came out from the office of the accused person and
gave the pre fixed signal and thereafter the TLO and they entered
into the office of the accused person. TLO introduced himself to the
accused person and stated to him that he has information that he

(accused) has received bribe amount from the complainant. On being (

asked by the TLO, the complainant stated that the accused had
received the bribe amount and kept the same on the right front

WP trouser pocket of his wearing trouser. In a clean bowl the

solution was prepared mixed with sodium carbonate and the right
hand of the accused person was washed therein and then the colour
water

of the water solution turned into pink. The said right hand washed
water solution of the accused person was poured in a clean bottle and
saru procedure water solution was prepared
sealed. By,following ihe
in a different bowl and the left hand of the accused person was
washed therein, but the colour of the water solution did not change
and thereafter the left hand water solution of the accused person was
poured in a clean bottle and sealed and he had put his signatures in

tzYr/ 20

Spericl Judge' Assam

Grtu'r*!r'tti .
 both the bottles. M.Ext,S is the said botHe and M. Ext 5(4) is his
signature. M.Ext,6 is the bottle containing left ha'nd washed water
solution of the accused and M. Ext 6 (4) is his signature. The person
who accompanied the complainant brought out the tainted money
from the right front trouser pocket of the accused person, The serial
nos. of the recovered tainted money was tallied with the serial nos. of
notes mentioned in the Pre Trap Memorandum and both tallied with
each other and thereafter the Investigating officer had seized the
recovered tainted money. One handkerchief was found in the right
front trouser pocket of the accused person and the Investigating
Officer also seized the said handkerchief and on being washed the
handkerchief in a solution mixed with sodium carbonate the water
mixed with sodium carbonate turned into pink colour. The
handkerchief washed water solution was poured in a deln bottle and
sealed and he put his signature in the said seized botHe. M. Ext. 1 is
the bottle containing handkerchief washed water solution of accused
and M. Ext. 1(4) is his signature. Thereafter one post Trap
Memorandum was prepared in the office of the accused person where
he put his signatures. Ext.8 is the post trap memorandum and Ext. 8
\
(5) and Ext. 8 (6) are his signatures. The facsimile of the brass office

ffi
seal were fixed in a sepbrate paper which was annexed with the post
Trap Memorandum. Ext. 8 (6) is his signature on the said paper
containing the facsimile of the brass office seal, TLO read over the
{;
contents of Post Trap Memorandum to them. Thereafter the accused
person was arrested, he was medically examined and brought to their
office. He had seen M.Ext.8 to M.Ext.12 the tainted G.C, notes which
were recovered on that day from the possession of accused.
)
15,8 In his cross-examination, PW.4 has deposed that the I.O. was present
on the day of laying trap along with the trap team. pW.4 has further
deposed that he had not personally seen the complainant handing
over the bribe money to the accused person and he had also not
heard the conversation that took place between the complainant and

X r\-('
Specicl Iudge. lssam
21.

Guwakati
 the accused on the day of occurrence and he does not know whether
there was any demand of bribe from the accused person and he was
present with the trap team as per the instruction of'hi3 seniors.
15.9 PW.5 sri Biju Kalita, another constable of vigilance & Anti-corruption,
Assam, Guwahati being the trap team member has deposed that on
11.04.17 as per the instruction of TLO Karuna Bordoloi he typed out
the Pre-Trap Memorandum in the office chamber of Karuna Bordoloi
and after completion of typing out of Pre Trap Memorandum (Ext.7)
he put his signatures therein as Ext, 7(7) and Ext. 7(B) respectively.
On that day after 3.00 pm he went to the office of Agriculture situated
at Ulubari, Guwahati and typed one Post Trap Memorandum (Ext.8)
on being dictated by TLO Karuna Bordoloi and I.O. Inspector Sukumar
Sinha and put his signatures therein as Ext. B(7) and Ext. B(B)
respectively. ,
15.10 In his cross-examination, PW.5 has deposed that as per dictation, he
typed out the Post Trap Memorandum in the official Laptop of
Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, Assam, & AC, Assam. But was not the eye
witness to the occurrence.
15.11 PW.6 Sri Ajay Kr. Patowary has deposed that on tLl04l20t7 he was
working as Agriculture Inspector in the Office of the District
\
Agriculture Office, Ulubari and he knows accused Durga Ram Baruah
who works in the same office. He has deposed that on that day at
around 03.00 pm a team of police officers of Vigilance & Anti-
Corruption, Assam in civil dress came to their office and caught
accused Durga Ram Baruah and at that time he was working in his
own table. The officer of Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, Assam washed
the right hand of accused Durga Ram Baruah in a water solution
which turned into pink colour and thereafter the said hand washed
water of accused Durga Ram Baruah was poured in a bottle and
sealed and put his signature on the sealed bottle. M. Ext.5 is the
bottle containing the right hand washed water solution of accused

I Durga Ram Baruah and M. Ext. 5(5) is his signature. The left hand of

1#v
fudge,
Speciol lssam
22

Guwa.tloti
 the accused was similarly put in another bowl containing water
solution, however, this time the colour of the water did not change
and the left hand washed water solution of accusbd'was poured in a
bottle and sealed. He (PW.6) has identified the botUe containing the
left hand washed water solution of the accused as M. Ext. 6. M.Ext.6
(5) is his signature thereon, The police also recovered and seized the
mobile handset of the accused person. The tainted money was
recovered from the right trouser pocket of the accused person which
amount to Rs. 7,0001-. The police officers tallied the serial nos. of the
recovered tainted money with the serial nos. already recorded by
them and both the serial nos. tallied with each other. The pocket of
the wearing trouser of the accused person was separately washed in
a water solution which turned into pink colour. one handkerchief of
the accused person was also washed in a separate solution which also
turned into pink colour. The water solution of the pocket and the
handkerchief were poured in a clean botUe and seared. pw.6 has
identified the bottle containing the water solution of the pocket
washed and handkerchief washed water of the accused person as

s
M.Ext, 1 and M.Ext. 1(5) as his signature. pW.6 has further deposed
that police seized vide Ext. 3, one pocket and handkerchief washed
yrater solution, one handkerchief and one Gionee Mobile handset and
Ext. 3(4) is his signatuie. M.Ext,2 is the handkerchief, M.Ext.4 is the
Gionee mobile handset. Police also seized the botUes containing the
right hand and left hand washed water solution of the accused person
and the tainted money vide Ext. 5 seizure list and obtained his
signature therein {Ext. 5(3)}. The recovered money were put in an
envelope and sealed and he (pW.6) being the witness put his
signature (3)) in the envelope (M.Ext.7). Accused also put
,M.Ext.7
his signature in the envelope containing the tainted money as M.Ext.7
(4) which he knows. Police on that day also seized from their office
one pending file (M.Ext.4) vide Ext. 4 seizure list and obtained his
signature therein as Ext. 4(3) and accused Durga Ram Baruah also

t$,{
Special ludge, lssam
23

Gux,a!ruti.
 put his signatures in M. Exts. 1, 5 and 6 as M.Ext.1(6), 5(6) and 6(6)
respectively in his presence. The accused person was arrested for
allegedly accepting gratification of Rs. 7,A\q- from Golok Hazarika
and two days prior to the incident accused Durga Ram Baruah stated
to him that Rs. 7,50A1- of Golok Hazarika has to be deposited by him
through Treasury Challan and he had seen the challans available in
M.Ext.4 (Pending File), The Challans are of Rs. 100/- passed by
accused Durga Ram Baruah. The above treasury challans are in the
office file after the challans amounts were duly paid in the Bank after
being passed by the Treasury. M. Ext, 4(15) and M. Ext, 4(16) are the
signatures of accused Durga Ram Baruah which are known to him. He
(PW.6) has identified the envelope containing the handkerchief of the
accused person as M.Ext.3 and M. Ext. 3(4) as his signature therein.
15.12 In his cross-examination, PW.6 has deposed that he and Durga Ram

Baruah sit in the same office room and the distance between his table
and the table of the accused is about 1 and 7z meter. If any
discussion takes place on the table of the accused person that can be
heard from his table. PW.6 has identified M. Ext.4 (1) which is the
application submitted by Golok Hazarika for Wholesale and Retail
Licenseof Feftilizer but along with this application he had not seen
any challan. PW.6 has further deposed that M.Ext.4(1) does not
reflect deposit of any Registration Fees. The license fees for fertilizer
wholesale is Rs. 1,500/-. But there is no license fees for fertilizer
Retail. The license fee for Pesticides Retail is Rs. 7,500/- w.e.f. middle
of 2016. PW.6 has identified M. Ext.4 (3) as the application for
Pesticides Retail which is annexed with a Challan of Rs. 100/-, M. Ext,
4(7) is the said challan, M. Ext. 4(5) is the application for seeds
license and,, the license fee required is Rs. 100/- and M.Ext.a(S) is
annexed with a challan of Rs. 100/- . M. Ext. 4 (11) is the said
challan. The total license fees for the above licenses were Rs. 9,L001-.
Rs. 100/- has already been paid as license fee for the seed license.
But he had not seen any challan regarding deposit of Rs. 7,5001- and

24

ne*d
ludge' Assam
Speciol
Guwdlnti'
 Rs. 1500/-. PW.6 has further deposed that he had not seen
complainant Golok Hazarika in their office before the incident,
however, he was told by the accused regarding deposit of such
challan fees for Complainant Golok Hazarika prior to the incident.
PW.6 has fufther deposed that he had not heard the conversations
that took place on the day of occurrence between Golok Hazarika and
the accused.
15.13 PW.7 Sri Ranjit Sinha, another constable of Vigilance & Anti-
Corruption, Assam being one of the members of the trap team has
deposed that on 1U0412017 the trap team members assembled in

the office chamber of TLO Karuna Bordoloi where the complainant

and two independent witnesses were also present. TLO explained to
them and also narrated the facts of the complaint. The complainant
produced Rs. 7,000/- and the serial nos, of the G.C. notes were noted
down which consists of 3 nos. of Rs. 2,000/- denomination notes and
2 nos. of Rs. 500/- denomination notes and thereafter the
demonstrator mixed phenolphthalein powder with the G.C. notes and
thereafter washed his hands in a water solution which turned into
pink colour and the hand washed water of the demonstrator was
poured in a clean bottle and sealed. PW.7 has identified the said (
bottle containing the hand washed water solution of the demonstrator
as M,Ext.13 and M.Ext.13(3) as his signature. PW.7 has further
deposed that one Pre trap Memorandum was prepared where he put
his signature. PW.7 has identified Ext. 7 as the Pre Trap Memorandum
and Ext, 7(9) and Ext. 7(10) are his signatures. The facsimile of the
brass seal was obtained in the Pre trap Memorandum where he put
his signature as Ext. 7(10). After completion of Pre Trap
Memorandum they Went to the Office of the Agriculture, Ulubari and
he was following the independent witness. The Complainant and the
shadow witness entered into the office room of the accused person
and after sometime they received a pre-fixed signal and then they
entered into the office chamber of the accused person and caught the

25

1/\'/
Soecial'ludge' Assam
Guwahati'
 accused person, found the tainted money from the right side trouser
pocket of the accused person and the serial nos, qf the recovered
money were tallied with the serial nos. mentioned in the pre-Trap
Memorandum which tallied with each other. Thereafter, the right
hand of the accused person was washed in the water solution which
turned into pink colour. The left hand of the accused was also washed
in the water solution but the same did not turn into pink colour. The
hand wash of the right hand and left hand of the accused person
were put in two separate clean botUes and sealed. The right trouser
pocket of the accused person was also washed in a water solution
which turned into pink colour and the same was sealed in a separate
clean bottle. He put his signature in all the three botUes. M.Ext.5 and
M.Ext.6 are the bottles containing the right and left hand wash water
solution of the accused person respectively and M.Ext.5(7) and
M.Ext.6(7) are his signature. M.Ext.1 is the botUe containing the
pocket washed water solution of the accused and M.Ext.1(7) is his
signature. M.Ext.B to M.Ext.12 are the tainted recovered money. The
above exhibits were seized by the Investigating Officer in connection
with this case. PW,7 has further deposed that one post rrap
(
Memorandum (Ext.8) was prepared where he put his signature as Ext.
8 (9) and Ext. B (10) respectively. The facsimile of the brass seal was
obtained in the Post rrap Memorandum and Ext. g (10) is his
signature on the page containing the facsimile of the brass seal and
thereafter the accused was arrested and brought to their office.
75.74 In his cross-examination, PW,7 has deposed that he does not know
the contents of Pre Trap and post Trap Memorandum. pW.7 has
further deposed that as per the direction of his seniors he had put his
signatures in Pre Trap and Post rrap Memorandum. pw.7 has further
deposed that when the complainant entered into the office room of
the accused person he was waiting outside, pw,7 has deposed that
Investigating officer seized the wearing trouser, the tainted money
and other afticles which he does not remember now.

o(.t.,\/ 26

speciot irlr:, tssam

Guu'a\ati
 15.15 PW.B Smti. Nandini Deka, the then Dy. Superintendent of police,
Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, Assam, being the Demonstrator of the
trap team has deposed that on 1U0412017 she was detailed as a

Demonstrator of the trap team in which Dy. superintendent of police,

Karuna Bordoloi was the TLo and on that day they assembled in their
office. TLO Karuna Bordoloi read over the F.I.R. before the trap team
members and also stated to them that one Baruah, Agriculture
Inspector has demanded Rs. 9,000/- from the complainant Golok
Hazarika for providing 3 nos. of license of pesticides. She
demonstrated before the entire trap team members, the complainant
and two independent witnesses regarding the
reaction of
phenolphthalein powder with sodium carbonate and water. The
complainant produced Rs. 7,000/- consisting of 3 nos. of Rs. 20001-
denomination note and 2 nos. of Rs. 500/- denomination note and
she mixed Phenolphthalein powder with the above G.C. notes and
thereafter washed her hands in a solution prepared with sodium
carbonate and water and then the colour of the solution turned into
pink and the same was preserved in a bottle and sealed and marked
as "A". She has exhibited the said bottle as M.Ext.13 and M.Ext.13 (4)
is her signature. Thereafter she put the tainted money in a side bag
(
of the complainant as desired by the complainant with an instruction

f,ffi
not to touch the same until demanded by the accused person. One
Pre trap Memorandum was prepared where she put her signature.
Ext. 7 is the Pre Trap Memorandum where the serial nos. of the
tainted money are recorded and Ext. 7 (11) and Ert. 7 (12) are her
signatures, The facsimile of the brass seal was also obtained in a Pre
Trap memorandum and thereafter, the trap team proceeded to lay
the trap and she stayed back in her office, She had seen the tainted
G.C. notes before the Court, the serial nos. of which are mentioned in
the Pre Trap Memorandum.
15.16 In her cross-examination, she has deposed that the colour of
phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate powder are white and the

,I
, lt\ 27
3 ,fl\
ludge' Assam
Speciol
Gw+'a!,'oti
 above powders were not prepared in their office. pW.B has further
deposed that she also does not know how to prebare the above
chemical powders. The above chemical powders are purchased by
their office from the firms and after purchase of the above chemical
powders, their office do not conduct any test to know the genuinity of
the powder. The phenolphthalein powders were mixed with the
tainted money by her own hands and she does not know if
phenolphthalein powder is banned by America in the year 1999 as it
causes cancer.
75.17 PW.9 Sri Binod Ch. Barman, another police officer who was also a

member of the trap team has deposed that on 1U0412017 the then
Superintendent of Police -cum- O.C., ACB P.S. constituted a trap team
after receipt of complaint from one Golok Hazarika and ACB p,S. Case

No. 13/2017 was registered on the basis of the said conlplaint and he
was included as a member of the trap team. On the same day they
assembled in the office chamber of Dy.S,P. Karuna Bordoloi. Apart
from the trap team members, the complainant and two independent
witnesses were also present where complainant produced Rs, 7,000/-
consisting of 3 Nos. of Rs. 20001- denomination notes and 2 nos. of
(
Rs. 500/- denomination notes. The Demonstrator Nandini Deka
recorded the serial nos.. of the above mentioned G.C. Notes and she
mixed one chemical powder with the G.C. Notes and washed her hand

W in a water solution and when she dipped her finger in that solution
the colour of the solution turned into pink. Thereafter, the hand
washed solution of the Demonstrator was poured in a bottle and
sealed it. The Demonstrator put the tainted G.C. notes on the side
bag of the complainant with an instruction to give the tainted money
to the accGed person only if the same is demanded by the accused
person. One Pre Trap Memorandum was prepared in their office
where they put their signatures. Ext. 7(13) and Ext. 7(14) are his
signatures in pre-trap memorandum. The facsimile of the brass seal
was also obtained in the Pre Trap Memorandum. At around 02.30 pm

28

I ,nv\/
Special ludge, lssam
Gurvc!nti
 the trap team proceeded to the office of Kamrup District Agriculture
and after reaching the office of the Kamrup Dist;ic! Agriculture, he
was waiting outside. After some time the Investigating officer
Sukumar Sinha gave a requisition to him to search the house
premises of accused Durga Ram Baruah and so, he came to Hajo
Pakhamela to search the house premises of the accused person and
conducted the search and seized 4 nos. of documents in presence of
witnesses vide the seizure list Ext.10 and Ext. 10(1) is his signature.
After completing the search he handed over the SCD to the
Investigating Officer along with the seizure list and documents.
15.18 In his cross-examination, PW,9 has denied the suggestion that during
house search at Hajo Pakhamela no local witness was present. He has
admitted that he did not seize any passbook in the name of accused.
PW.9 has deposed that he had not seized any passbodk standing in
the name of Durga Ram Baruah.
15.19 PW.10 Sri Pinaki Prasad Mitra, Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti-
Corruption, Assam, Guwahati being the trap team members has
deposed that on 1U04177 he was serving as Inspector of police in
Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, Assam and on that day one Golok
(
Hazarika lodged an F.I.R. before the Officer-in-Charge, ACB police
Station and on receipt of the F.LR. the then O.C. ACB p.S. made G.D.
Entry No. 27 Dtd. 1t10412017 and asked him to conduct an enquiry
regarding the authenticity of the allegation. The Complainant
produced one recorded conversation between one Baruah, Agriculture
Inspector and the complainant of this case, From the allegation he
came to know that the complainant had applied for 3 nos. of retail
sale of Feftilizers etc.. and also came to know that Inspector Baruah
demanded Rs. 3,000/- each for issue of each licence as bribe. Apart
from hearing the above conversation, he made a confidential enquiry
and found that the allegation is authentic and accordingly he
submitted his report on the same day with a prayer to register a
case' Ext. 1 is the F.I.R. and Ext. 1(2) is his report on the back side
,t
9 ,#\n\ 29
tudge' lssam
Spectil
Gl,;l,td\ati
 of the F.I.R. and Ext. 1(3) is his signature. After receipt of his report,
the Officer-in-Charge, ACB Police Station registered ACB P.S. Case No.
1312017 UIS 7lt3(t)(d) and 13(2) of P.C. Act and constituted a trap
team and he was made a team member of the trap team. On the day
of his deposition before the Court he had seen the order Dtd.
1U04120L7 issued by the then S.P. cum O.C. of ACB P.S. for
constituting the trap team. Ext. 11 is the said order and Ext. 11(1) is
the signature of the then S.P. of Vivekananda Das which he knows as
they worked together. After constitution of the trap team they
assembled in the chamber of TLO Karuna Bordoloi to prepare the Pre
Trap Memorandum and other steps. Dy. S.P. Nandini Deka gave
demonstration at the time of preparing the Pre Trap
Memorandum. Two independent witnesses, complainant and other
trap team members were present at the time of preppring the Pre

Trap Memorandum. TLO Karuna Bordoloi read over the F.I.R. to all
the trap team members for knowing the reason of assemble. During
demonstration the complainant produced Rs, 7,000/- consisting of 3
nos. of Rs. 2,000/- denomination note and 2 nos. of Rs. 500/-
denomination note, The serial numbers of the above G.C. notes are
recorded in the Pre Trap Memorandum. Demonstrator Nandini Deka
mixed Phenolphthalein Powder with the G.C. notes and the
demonstrator put the tainted G.C. notes on the side pocket of the
hand bag of the complainant as per his wish with an instruction not to
touch the tainted money till the same is demanded by the accused
person. The Demonstrator washed her hand in a solution prepared
with sodium carbonate and water which turned into pink colour. The
hand washed solution of the Demonstrator was poured in a clean
bottle and Sealed it and marked as "A" for identification and they put
their signatures in the said bottle. M.Ext.13 is the said bottle.
M,Ext.13(5) is his signature. The preparation of Pre trap
Memorandum stafted at around 01.00 pm and completed at around
02.00 pm. During the preparation of Pre Trap Memorandum, the TLO
a
.d

30
3/\-w
Special ludge, lssam
Guv'allati.
 described the duties to all the trap team members including the
Independent witnesses and the complainant. All thg above facts were
mentioned in the Pre trap Memorandum and they put their signatures
thereon. The Pre Trap Memorandum was read over to all the trap
team members. Ext.7 is the Pre Trap Memorandum, Ext.7(15) and
Ext.7(16) are his signatures. The facsimile of the brass seal was
obtained in the Pre Trap Memorandum where they put their
signatures. After completion of Pre Trap proceeding, except Nandini
Deka and the kit containing Phenolphthalein Powder they proceeded
to the Office of the District Agriculture Officer after washing their
hands. After reaching the office of the District Agriculture officer at
around 03.15 pffi, the complainant and the two independent
witnesses entered into the office of the District Agriculture officer and
they were waiting near the office by taking position in such a manner
that if the independent witness gives any pre fixed signal they can
witness the same. After some time they received the pre flxed signal
from one of the independent witness and thereafter under the
leadership of TLO, they entered into the office. The TLO identified
himself to the accused person and on being asked the accused person
identified himself as Durga Ram Baruah, Agriculture Inspector. On
being asked by the TLO, the complainant and the independent
witnesses stated that when the complainant met the accused person
stating that he has appeared for his licenses along with the demanded
money the accused person received the demanded money and kept
the same on the front right pocket of wearing trouser. PW,10 has
further deposed that to know whether the accused person had
accepted the tainted money voluntarily, both the hands of the
accused petson were washed separately in water solution prepared
with sodiun'i carbonate and when the right hand of the accused
person was washed in the said solution the colour of the solution
turned into pink. But when the left hand of the accused was washed
in a separate prepared solution, the colour of the solution remained

i;t'd
Soeciol Iudge' Assam
31

6utlcttati
 milky white. The right hand washed solution and the left hand washed
solution of the accused person were poured in two flean bottles and
sealed and marked as "B" and "C" respectively and they put their
signatures in the sealed packed bottles. M.Ext.5(7) and M.Ext.6 (8)
are his signatures. One of the Independent witnesses had brought out
the tainted money from the right front trouser pocket of the accused
person along with one handkerchief and thereafter, the serial nos. of
the recovered money tallied with the serial nos. mentioned in the Pre

Trap Memorandum and the Investigating Officer seized the recovered

tainted money and the bottles containing the hand washed of the
accused person. Seized tainted money were put in an envelope and
sealed and marked as "D". He had seen the recovered tainted money
being M. Ext. 8 to M. Ext. L2 in Court on the day of his
deposition, M.Ext.7 is the said envelope containin( tne tainted
money. The handkerchief which was found from the pocket of the
accused person was washed in a water solution plepared with sodium
carbonate which also turned into pink colour and thereafter, the
handkerchief washed water solution was poured in a clean bottle and
sealed and marked as "E". M.Ext.1 is the said bottle and M.Ext.1 (8) is
(
his signature. The said handkerchief was put in an envelope and
sealed and marked as "F". The handkerchief, the bottle containing the
handkerchief washed solution and one mobile handset were also
seized by the Investigating Officer vide Ext. 3 seizure list
and M.Ext.3 is the said envelope where the handkerchief was kept.;
M.Ext.2 is the said handkerchief. Thereafter one Post Trap
Memorandum was prepared narrating the entire facts and Ext.8 (11)
and Ext.8 (12) are his signatures ther.eon. The serial nos. of the
recorded tainted money also mentioned in the Post Trap
Memorandum. The facsimile of the brass seal was obtained in the
Post Trap Memorandum and they put their signature on the Post Trap
Memorandum after the same was read over to them. Thereafter LO.
arrested the accused person and one of their officers was entrusted to

32

?/t'\/
Judge' lssam
Soecial
Guwakati
 search the house of the accused person.
15.20 In his cross-examination, PW.10 has deposed that he.had not seized
the mobile handset of the complainant during his preliminary enquiry
and he had not prepared any compact disc of the recorded
conversation. PW.10 has fufther deposed that in the F.LR., it is not
mentioned that for each license the accused person had demanded
Rs. 3,000/-. PW.10 has fufther deposed that he had not enquired
regarding the amount of Govt. fee required for issuing of the 3 (three)
licenses. PW.10 has further deposed that after submission of his
enquiry repoft the case was registered, PW.10 has deposed that he
had submitted his enquiry repoft before visiting the office of the
District Agriculture Officer. In the F.I.R. it is not mentioned that the
accused person had accepted the bribe money. PW.10 has further
deposed that he has no knowledge under what section'th. .ur. *u,
registered by the then O.C. after receipt of his enquiry report. PW,10
has fufther deposed that he did not recollect the names of the
independent witnesses and also of their professions and he could not
say if the independent witnesses belong to the Home Depaftment.
PW.10 has denied the suggestion that in a pre planned manner they (
had caught the accused person. PW.10 has deposed in cross that
before bribe was accbpted the case was registered under Sec

7113(l)(d)113(2) of P.C. Act. PW.10 has denied the suggestion that

there was no voice recording of conversation between the accused
and the complainant for which the same could not be furnished
before the Court. PW.10 has further denied the suggestion that
without proper enquiry he had submitted his preliminary enquiry
repoft.
t5.21 PW.11 Jiten Das, another police personnel of Vigilance & Anti-
Corruption, Assam, Guwahati being one of the members of the trap
team has deposed that on 1U0412017 they assembled in the office
room of the TLO Karuna Bordoloi where the complainant and two
independent witnesses were also present. TLO explained them that

33

?Jf"'\/
Special ludge, tssan
Guwatuti
 one F.I.R. had been lodged alleging that one Durga Ram Baruah,
Agriculture Inspector demanded Rs. 3,000/- each_ for issuance of 3
nos. Licenses from the complainant. TLo stated that the complainant
was not desirous to pay the money and accordingly lodged the
complaint. Complainant Golok Hazarika produced Rs.7,000/-
consisting of 3 nos. of Rs. 2,0001- denomination note and 2 nos. of
Rs. 500/- denomination note. The Demonstrator Smti Nandini Deka
mixed phenolphthalein powder with the G.C. notes and kept the same
in the side pocket of the bag of the complainant with an instruction
not to touch the same unless demanded by the accused person. The
Demonstrator washed her hands in a solution prepared with sodium
carbonate and water which turned into pink colour. The hand washed
solution of the Demonstrator was poured in a clean botUe and sealed.
M,Ext.13 is the said bottle and M.Ext.13 (6) is his signature.
Thereafter they all washed their hands. pW.11 has further deposed
that one Pre Trap Memorandum (E>ct.7) was prepared and he put his
signatures thereon. Ext. 7(17) and Ext. 7(18) are his signatures.
PW.11 has further deposed that after completion of the pre trap
proceeding they proceeded to the Agriculture office situated at Ulubari
andthey were waiting in a scattered manner as per direction of the

ffi
TLO. After some time. the TLO called them into the Office of the
District Agriculture Officer and instructed him and Inspector Binod Kr.
Barman to conduct house search at the residence of accused Durga
Ram Baruah situated at Hajo Pakhamela, Thereafter they conducted
house search in the house of the accused person and seized some
documents vide Ext.10 seizure list
L5.22 In his cross-examination, PW.11 has deposed that his statement was
recorded b,y the Investigating Officer and in his 161 Cr.p.C.
statement he had not stated that Rs.3,000/- each for 3 (three)
licenses were demanded by the accused person. PW.i1 has further
deposed that the colour of phenolphthalein powder is whitish and he
does not know how the solution of sodium carbonate with water is

N 34

1^/,,\\J
Specio/ Iudge' Arsom
-

prepared.
75.23 PW.12 Dr. Rupali Bhattacharyya, the Scientific Officgr Of FSL, Assam,
Kahilipara, Guwahati has deposed that on ZBl04lZ0t7 her office
received one parcel from the Superintendent of police, (Law) Vigilance
& Anti-Corruption, Assam vide Letter No. DGVA/RUZII7lt492 Dtd.
261041t7 in connection with ACB Case No. t3lZ0L7 U/S 7l
13(1Xd)/13(2) of P.C. Act, 19BB advising for examination and the
case was allotted to her for examination. PW.12 has fur-ther deposed
that the parcel consisted 6 (six) exhibits enclosed in a carton box with
cloth cover i.e. (1) One sealed plastic bottle containing 500 ml pink
colour liquid marked as Ext. "A" and marked byher as C-Z9ll7(a);
(2) One sealed plastic bottle containing 500 ml pink colour liquid
marked as Ext. "8" and marked by her as C-29177(b); (3) One sealed
plastic bottle containing 500 ml pink colour liquid marked as Ext. "C"
which was marked by her as C-29117(c); (4) One seated brown
colour envelope containing 3 G.C. notes of Rs. 2000/- denomination
vide Sl. No. 1DP 445274,OCD 995025 and 1FU 561416. And 2 G.C .

notes of Rs. 500/- denomination vide Sl. No. 6EW 127249 and 1FW
928835 marked as Ext. D M.R. No. 30/17 Sl. No, 3 which was marked
\
byas C-29117(d); (5) One sealed glass bottle containing 300 ml mitky
white colour liquid marked as Ext. E which was marked by her as C-

ffi
29117(e) and (6) One sealed yellow colour envelope containing a
handkerchief with green and brown colour print of flower marked as
Elt. F vide M.R NO. 3U17 Sl. No. 2 which was marked here as C-
291L7(f). On examination of the above mentioned articles she found
that 1. The exhibits C-29117(a), C-29117(b) and C-29177(e) gave
positive test for sodium ion (Na)*, Carbonate ion (CO:)2- , Water
(HzO) and phenolphthalein; 2, The Ext. C-29177(c) gave negative test

for phenolphthalein and positive test for sodium ion (Na)*, Carbonate
ion (CO3)2- and Water (HrO); 3. The Ert. C-291L7(d) gave positive test
for phenolphthalein and 4. The Ext. C-29117(f) gave positive test for
phenolphthalein, sodium ion (Na)*and Carbonate ion (CO3)2-. The

/
4At
Speci olu I ud
ge' tl ss on'
35

.
GLtlt't'tatr
 repot was signed by her on 1710512077. Elt. 12 is her report and
Ext.12(1) is her signature . After completion of exdmination of the
exhibits it was sealed with a tag that was signed by her. M.Ext.134 is
the tag attached with M.Ext.13 and M.Ext.13A(1) is her signature.
M.Ext.SA is the tag attached with M.Ext. 5 and M.Ext. 5A(1) is her
signature. M.Ext.64 is the tag attached with M.Ext. 6 and M.Ext. 64(1)
is her signature. M.Ext.lA is the tag attached with M.Ext. l and
M.Ext. 1A(1) is her signature. M.Ext.3A is the tag attached with
M.Ext. 3, where handkerchief (M.Ext. 2) was packed and sealed and
M.Ext. 3A(1) is her signature. M.Ext.7A is the tag attached with
M.Ext.7 and M,Ext.74(1) is her signature.
75.24 In her cross-examination, She has deposed that in M. Exts. 1,3,5, 6,
7 and 13 the facsimile of the seal do not appear as ACB and she had
not seen the letter dtd. 2610412077 vide ' Letter No.

DGVA/RI/20t717492 written by Superintendent of Police, Vigilance &

Anti-Corruption, Assam, to her Director. PW.12 has further deposed
that in her report she had not mentioned the procedure applied for
examination of the exhibits and the specific dates of examination of
the exhibits are also not mentioned in her repoft. The parcel was at
first received in the Reception Counter and thereafter forwarded to
the concerned Division, PW.12 has further deposed that the parcel

was received in their office on 28104120t7 and in her repot it was

not mentioned when the parcel was received by their Division.
15.25 PW.13 Mohendra Mohon Patowary is an independent witness who has
deposed that on 1U0412077 he was serving as Inspector in BIEO,
Guwahati and on that day as per the direction of his higher authority,
he visited the office. of the Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, Assam to
assist theni in connection with a case. Ext. 14 is the letter dtd.
lLl04l20L7 whereby Superintendent of Police, BIEO deputed him
and Inspector Nripen Sarma to report before the Vigilance & Anti-
Corruption, Assam to assist them in connection with a case. As per
the above order he along with Inspector Nripen Sarma came to the

36

,0r,,3'd}'f,"'^
 Vigilance office and in that office the vigilance officials were also
present where one Golok Hazarika submitted that l're had applied for 3

nos. of licenses in the office of the District Agriculture Officer, Ulubari

and one Inspector with surname Baruah demanded Rs. 3,000/- each
for each license from him as bribe, The Officials of Vigilance to lay the
trap prepared one Pre Trap Memorandum and the Complainant
produced 3 nos. of Rs. 2,0001- denomination note and 2 nos, of Rs.

500/- denomination note and the Demonstrator Nandini Deka mixed

some chemical powder with the said G.C. notes and washed her
hands in a water solution and thereafter the colour of that solution
turned into pink. The serial nos. of the G.C. notes were also noted
down. The tainted G.C. notes were put in a bag of the complainant
with an instruction to give the same to the accused person only on

being demanded. Thereafter, the hand wash of the Denionstrator was

poured in a bottle and sealed. M.Ext.13 is the said bottle and
M.Ext.13(7) is his signature. They were instr:ucted by the TLO
regarding their duties at the time of proceeding. Ext. 7 is the Pre Trap
Memorandum and Ext. 7(17) and Ext. 7(18) are his signatures.
Thereafter they proceeded to the office of the District Agriculture (
Officer, Ulubari except Nandini Deka and after reaching the office, the
complainant and Nripen Sarma entered into the room where Inspector
Baruah used to work. After some time he received pre fixed signal

from Nripen Sarma that the accused person received the bribe
amount and thereafter he gave signal to the other trap team
members and then they all entered into the room of Agriculture
Inspector Baruah. After entering into the office room of the accused
person, TLO, Karuna Bordoloi challenged Inspector Baruah that he
had receivbd bribe money from the complainant and to prove his
innocence asked him to wash his hands in a water solution prepared
by Vigilance Officers. The Vigilance officials prepared water solutions
in two bowls and when accused washed his right hand in the said
bowl the colour of the solution turned into pink. Similarly, accused

37

il /\'\/
Special ludge, lssam
G.uwalnti
 washed his left hand in the other bowl and on this occasion the colour
of the solution did not change. The right hand washed solution of the
accused person was poured in a bottle and sealed and marked as,.B,,.
Similarly, the left hand washed solution of the accused person was
poured in a bottle and sealed and marked as "C". M.Ext.S is the
bottle containing the right hand washed solution of the accused
person and M.Ext.5(8) is his signature. M.E)d. 6 is the bottle
containing the left hand washed solution of the accused person and
M.Ext.6(9) is his signature. Inspector Nripen Sarma recovered the
tainted money amounting to Rs.7,0001- from the right wearing trouser
pocket of the accused person. After recovery of the tainted money
the same were tallied with the serial nos, mentioned in the pre Trap
Memorandum which tallied with each other. M.Ext.8 to M.Ext.12 are
the recovered tainted money which were shown to him bn the day of
his deposition. PW.13 has further deposed that one handkerchief of
the accused person was also recovered and the said handkerchief was
also washed in a solution separately prepared by the vigilance officials
and on being so washed the colour of the solution turned into pink.
The solution of the handkerchief washed was poured in a bottle and
sealed. The recovered tainted money, the bottles containing the
solutions, the handkerchief, one mobile handset were seized vide
Ext.3 and Ext.5 seizure lists and Ext.3(5) and Ext.5(5) are his
signatures. Thereafter, the recovered tainted money were kept in an
envelope and sealed. M.Ext.7 is the said envelope and M,Ext.7(5) is
his signature. M.Ext,2 is the said handkerchief. The handkerchief
was also put in an envelope and sealed. M.Ext.3 is the said envelope.
Accused Durga Ram Qaruah put his signatures in the seizure lists and
also in tfre t4.exts. in their presence as Ext. 3(6), Ext. 5(6) and Ext.
I

5(7), M.Ext.1(6), M.Ext. 3(5), M.Ext. 5(6), M.Ext. 6(6) and M.Ext.
7(4). One Post Trap Memorandum which was exhibited as Ext.8 was
prepared after completion of the proceeding and he put his signatures
in the Post Trap Memorandum (Ext.8) as Ext.8(13) and Ext. 8(14).
o
I
38

T,f\'{
Special Iudge'.Assam
Gu*'cltatt'
 The facsimile of the brass seal was obtained in the post Trap
Memorandum and the accused person was arrmtbd. pW,13 has
fufther deposed that one file from the office of the District Agriculture
officer, Ulubari was seized in connection with this case vide Ext.4 and
Ext.a(S) is his signature. M.Ext.4 is the said file.
15.26 In his cross-examination, he has deposed that BIEO and the Vigilance
& Anti-Corruption, Assam are under the Home Department. pW,13
has fufther deposed that he had not gone through the F.I.R ., but he
had been shown the FIR on the day of his deposition. pW.13 has
further deposed that in the F.LR. it is not mentioned that Rs, 3,000/-
was demanded for each 3 licenses but it is mentioned that Rs. 9,000/-
is demanded for 3 licenses. The facsimile of the brass seal appearing
in M.Ext. L, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 13 do not reflect ACB as the facsimile of
the brass seal are broken. The writings in the facsimild of the brass
seal appearing in Pre Trap Memorandum and post Trap Memorandum
are not readable. PW.13 has further deposed that he did not
remember the serial nos. of the recovered tainted money,M.Ext.3 the
envelope containing the and M.Ext. 1 the bottle
handkerchief
containing the handkerchief washed solution do not bear my
signature. PW.13 has further deposed that at the time of visiting the
office of the District Agriculture Officer, people of the locality was not
called to the office. PW.13 has denied the suggestion that the seized
money was Govt. fees for the three nos. of licenses. pW.13 has
fufther denied the suggestion that as Vigilance & Anti-Corruption,
Assam is under the Home Depaftment, he has deposed falsely in the
interest of their Depaftment.
75.27 PW.14 Sri Utpal Thawmong, a police constable of Vigilance & Anti-
Corruption,'Assam, Guwahati being another member of the trap team
has deposed that on 7U0412017 after constitution of the trap team
they assembled at the Conference Hall of their office and he had
typed the Pre Trap Memorandum as per dictation of the TLO and in
the Pre Trap Memorandum the name of the complainant, other

$r

q "J\,n(
39

lN lssdm
Special ludge'
Guwc'lnti'
-

witnesses, brief history of the case and the number of the G.c. notes
were mentioned and thereafter, he along with other trap team
members put their signatures in the pre Trap Memorandum. pw.14
has exhibited the pre Trap Memorandum as Ext.7 and Ext. 7(19) and
Ext. 7(20) as his signatures. pw.14 has further deposed that the
facsimile of the brass sear was obtained in the pre Trap Memorandum
and after completion of pre Trap Memorandum as per direction of
TLo, they proceeded to District Agricurture office. After reaching the
District Agriculture office, he was waiting in the vehicle with his
laptop, printer and his senior proceeded to the office and after
sometime they received a phone call and thereafter they entered into
the District Agriculture office. pw.14 has further deposed that after
entering into the office he had seen the accused person was caught
hold by both with his hand by their constables. ihereafter he
prepared himself for post rrap Memorandum and as per dictation of
TLo, he typed the post rrap Memorandum. pw.14 has exhibited
the Post rrap Memorandum as Ext.B and Ext. B(15) and Ext, g(16) as
his signatures. pw.14 has further deposed that the facsimile of the
brass seal was obtained in the post rrap Memorandum and he had
shown the G,c. notes the serial nos. of which were typed by him in
the Pre Trap Memorandum in court on the day of his deposition ,

PW,14 has identified M.Ext.8 to M.Ext.l2 are the said G. c. notes

ffi which
were
were recovered during post rrap proceeding and the same
mentioned in the post rrap Memorandum. pw.14 has further
deposed that apart from him, one Biju Kalita was also present as a
Computer Operator during the proceeding.
15.28 In his cross-examination, pw.14 has deposed that the name of the
complainant'is Golok Hazarika. pw.14 has further deposed that he
does not remember the serial nos. of the G. c. notes mentioned in pre
Trap and Post rrap Memorandum but the G.c. notes contains 3 nos.
of Rs. 2,000/- notes and 2 nos. of Rs. 500/- notes. pw.14 has further
deposed that the contents of the facsimile seal imprinted in post rrap
,f
1^d'
Special ludge' Assam
Guwa!nti
 memorandum are not legible.
15.29 PW.15 Sri Karuna Bordolai, being the TLO of this case has deposed
that on IUO4l2O17 he was serving as Dy. Superintendent of Police in
Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, Assam, On that day at around 10.30
complainant Golok Hazarika lodged an F.I.R. at ACB P.S, inter alia
stating that he has applied three Retail Licenses for seeds, feftilizers
and pesticides in the office of the District Agriculture Officer, Kamrup
and one Baruah, Agriculture Inspector demanded bribe of Rs. 9,000/-,
Rs. 3,000/- each for 3 licence. As the Complainant was not willing to
pay the bribe amount he has lodged the F.I.R. at ACB P.S. After
receipt of the F,I.R., the O.C, ACB P.S. Made G.D. entry No. 27
dtd.1Ll04l2017 and entrusted Inspector Pinaki Prasad Mitra to verify
the authenticity of the complaint. Inspector Pinaki Prasad Mitra after
verifying the authenticity of the complaint submitted repoft on the
back side of the F,I.R. After receipt of the repoft from Inspector
Pinaki Prasad Mitra, ACB P.S. registered ACB P.S. Case No. 1312017
UlSTlt3(1)(d)/13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988. Immediately after registration
of the case, the O.C. cum Superintendent of Police, ACB P.S.
constituted one trap team. Ext. 11 is the said order dtd. 1L10412017.
At that time Bibekananda Das was the S.P. cum O,C., ACB Police

Station. Ext. 1 is the F.I.R. and Ext. 1(a) is the endorsement for
enquiry along with the signature of the then S.P., ACB P.S, Ext.1(5) is
the signature of the then O.C., Cum S.P, ACB P.S. while registering
the case. Ext. 2 is the printed form of the F.I.R, Ext. 2(2) is the
signature of the then Superintendent of Police, ACB Police Station
whose signature is known to him as they worked together. As per the
order he was made the TLO of the case and Mrs. Nandini Deka was
made the Demonstrator and Inspector Sukumar Sinha was the I.O. ,

Inspector P.P. Mitra, Inspector Binod Ch. Barman, ASI Jiten Das,
Constable Biju Kalita (DTP), Constable Bipul Rabha, Constable Ranjit
Sinha, Constable Utpal Thawmong were the trap team members.
O.C., ACB Police Station gave requisition to Superintendent of Police,

,y' 4t

x/N
Special Judge, Assam
Guwa!lati
 BIEO requesting to provide Independent Witnesses. Accordingly S.P.,
BIEO deputed Inspector Nripen Sarma and Inspector Mahendra
Mohan Patowary as Independent Witnesses. Ext. 14 is the order dtd.
1L10412017 issued by S.P., BIEO detailing two Inspectors. After
arrival of the above named two independent witnesses in their office,
they stafted the pre trap proceedings at around 01.00 pm in hls office
chamber. The complainant was also present at that time. Ext.15 is
the office copy of letter dtd. 1110412017 issued by the Superintendent
of Police, ACB Police Station addressed to Superintendent of Police,
BIEO requesting detainment of two independent witnesses. Ext.
15(1) is the signature of the then Superintendent of Police, Vigilance
& Anti-Corruption, Assam Bibekanada Das whose signature is known
to him. PW.15 has fufther deposed that during Pre trap proceedings
he read over the contents of the F.LR to all the trap team members
and explained to them that they are planning to lay a trap against the
accused person. The Demonstrator Nandini Deka explained to the
trap team members regarding the reaction of phenolphthalein powder
with sodium carbonate and water. Thereafter the complainant
produced Rs. 7,000/- before them consisting of 3 nos. of Rs. 2,000/-
denomination note and 2 nos. of Rs. 500/- denomination note. The
serial nos. of the above. G.C. notes were noted down in their pre trap
memorandum. The Demonstrator Nandini Deka mixed
phenolphthalein powder with the said G.C. notes. She prepared one
solution of sodium carbonate and water in a bowl. She washed her
hand containing phenolphthalein powder in the said water solution
and then the colour of the solution turned into pink. The hand
washed solution of the Demonstrator was poured in a clean dry bottle
and sealed, The bottle was marked as "A" for identification. M.Ext.
13 is the said bottle and M.Ext.13(B) is his signature. Thereafter the
tainted money was put in the side pocket of the hand bag of the
an instruction not to touch the same unless
complainant with
demanded by the accused person. Witness Nripen Sarma was

Il-
42

1
^rt( lssam
Soecial ludge'
Guwa\ati '
 engaged as Shadow Witness and Mahendra Mohan Patowary as
independent witness. The above activities are recorded in the Pre
Trap Memorandum. He had read over the contents of the Pre Trap
Memorandum after its completion to all the team members.
Thereafter they all put their signatures in the Pre Trap Memorandum.
The facsimile of the brass seal was also obtained and signatures of
witnesses were also taken in the page where the facsimile of the
brass seal was obtained. Ext. 7 is the Pre Trap Memorandum and Ext.
7 (21) and Ext. 7(22) are his signatures. PW.15 has further deposed
that the Pre Trap Memorandum was completed at 02.00 pm and

Demonstrator Nandini Deka along with the remaining Phenolphthalein

powder was released from the trap team. Thereafter at around 02.25
pm other trap team members proceeded to the place of occurrence in
different vehicles. At around 02.45 pm they reached,the office of
District Agriculture Officer, Kamrup situated at R.K. Mission Road,
Ulubari, Guwahati and took their position in a scattered manner. The
complainant and shadow Witness Nripen Sarma entered into the
office of District Agriculture Officer, Kamrup to meet the accused
person, After some time the independent witness Mahendra Mohan

Patowary received pre fixed signal from the shadow witness Nripen
(
Sarma and after receivjng the signal from the independent witness
he along with the I.O. Inspector Sukumar Sinha entered into the
office room of accused person. After entering into the office room of
the accused, they gave their identity to the accused person and

he(PW,15) challenged the accused person regarding demand and

acceptance of Rs. 7,0001- as bribe money from the complainant. On
being asked the accused introduced himself as Durga Ram Baruah,
Agriculture,lnspector. PW.15 has further deposed that thereafter
they prepared one solution of sodium carbonate and drinking water in
a bowl and requested the accused person to wash his right hand in
the said water solution. The accused washed his right hand in the

4r
said solution and then the colour of the solution turned into pink.
,,0
t\
q ,.L' 43

tssam
soecialU'i'r''
Gut+'alrati
 Thereafter in a separate bowl same type of solution was prepared and
when the accused washed his left hand in the said solution the colour
of the solution remained milky white. The hand'''wbsh of the right
hand and the left hand of the accused person were preserved in two
separate clean bottles and sealed the same and marked the same as
"B" and "C" respectively for identification. M.Ext.S and M.Ext.6 are
said bottles and M. Ext. 5 (9) and M. Ext. 6 (10) are his signatures.
PW.15 has further deposed that on being asked shadow witness
Nripen Sarma stated before them that after entering into the office he
took his position near the door of the office room of the accused
person from where he can easily see the accused person and the
shadow witness Nripen Sarma also stated that complainant Golok
Hazarika entered into the office room of the accused person and then
the accused person asked him whether he has brought the demanded
bribe money, Golok Hazarika gave the answer in affirmative and
immediately the accused asked him to hand over the said money.
PW.15 has further deposed that the shadow witness Nripen Sarma
also stated that complainant produced the tainted money from his
side bag and the accused received the same through his right hand,
covered the same with a handkerchief and kept the same in his right
ftont trouser pocket. On being asked the complainant also supported
the version of the shadow witness Nripen Sarma, Then the shadow
witness Nripen Sarma on his direction recovered the tainted money
from the right front trouser pocket of the accused person and handed
over the same to the I.O. The I.O. through the other independent
witness tallied the serial nos. of the recovered tainted money with the
serial nos. mentioned in the Pre Trap memorandum and the same
tallied with.each other and thereafter the Investigating Officer seized
)
the recovered tainted money, put the same in an envelope and sealed
and marked as "D" for identification. The Investigating Officer also
seized the bottles containing the hand wash solutions of the accused
person. M.Ext.7 was the said F.I.R. containing the tainted money and
,^{
?/'
Special Judge' Assam
44

Guv'all'ati
 M, Ext. 7(6) is his signature. Other witnesses also put their signatures
in the said envelope. to
M.Ext.12 are
M.Ext.8
/recovered tainted
money. PW.15 has further deposed that the handkerchief of the
accused was also washed in a separately prepared solution of sodium
carbonate and water which turned into pink colour and thereafter, the
handkerchief washed water solution was poured in a clean bottle and
sealed and marked as "E". M.Ext.l is the bottle containing the
handkerchief washed water solution and M.Ext.1(9) is his signature.
The hand kerchief was put in an envelope and sealed and marked as
"F". M.Ext.3 is the said envelope and M.Ext.3(6) is his signature.
M.Ext.2 is the said handkerchief. PW.15 has fufther deposed that
accused Durga Ram Baruah also put his signatures in the bottles
containing his hand wash, handkerchief washed, envelope containing
the tainted money and the envelope containing his handkerchief as

M.Exts.5(6), 6(6).1(6),7(4) and 3(5) respectively in their presence.

PW.15 has further deposed that after their arrival in the office of
District Agriculture Officer, Kamrup, they informed the same to the
then District Agriculture Officer Bansidhar Kalita and the entire post
trap proceedings was done in his presence. Bansidhar Kalita also put
(
his signatures in M.Exts. 5, 6, L,7 and 3 as M.Exts. 1(1), 3(1), 5(1),
6(1) and 7(1) respectiyely. PW.15 has deposed that thereafter the
Investigating Officer had seized the concerned file from the
possession of the accused person and gave the same in zimma to
Bansidhar Kalita, District Agriculture Officer, Kamrup and thereafter
on the same day at around 05.30 pm accused Durga Ram Baruah was
arrested in connection with this case. PW.15 has fufther deposed that
one Post Trap Memorandum was prepared narrating the entire above
facts and the facsimile of the brass seal was obtained in the Post Trap
Memoranduin. ext. 8 is the Post Trap Memorandum and Ext. 8(15)
and Ext. 8(15) are his signatures. PW.15 has fufther deposed that he
put his signature in Ext. 8(15) in the page containing the facsimile of
the brass seal and other witnesses also put their signatures in Post
l rtl
,T
JN 45
A.ssotrt
Speciol Judge'.
Gttlt'c!t'zf r
 Trap Memorandum. PW.15 has further deposed that during the time
of Pre Trap proceeding, the complainant recorded thq conversation in

his mobile handset through which he contacted'with ttre accused

person to asceftain his presence in the office and to reduce the
demanded bribe amount and the Investigating Officer had seized the
mobile handset of the complainant and the Micro SD card.
i5.30 In his cross-examination, PW.15 has deposed that in the FIR it is not
mentioned that Rs. 3,000/- each was being demanded by the accused
person for three licenses. PW.15 has further deposed that he had not
recorded the statement of the complainant as he was not the
Investigating Officer of this case. PW.15 has denied the suggestion
that he had stated on his own that Agriculture Inspector one Baruah
demanded Rs.9,000/- @ Rs. 3,000/- each for three licenses. PW.15
has further denied the suggestion that in the verificatiop note on the
back side of the FIR Inspector Pinaki Prasad Mitra stated that he
verified the petition and it appeared to him that the Public Servant
demanded the bribe money. PW.15 has further deposed that in Ext.
15 the letter dtd. tLl04l20L7 issued by Superintendent of Police,

(Law), Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, Assam to Superintendent of Police,

BIEO), Assam requisitioned for detailment of two witnesses who are
Govt. Servant overwriting on the date on the body of the letter and
there is initial under the overwriting. The person who wrote the
letter dtd. LL|0412077 put the initial under the overwriting but the
signature appearsdifferent. Ext. A is the overwriting on letter
dtd.1ll04l2017 (Ext. 15). PW.15 has deposed that Ext. 15 was
delivered by their Dakman, but there was no record to show when
Ext.15 was delivered to the Superintendent of Police, (BIEO), Assam.
PW.15 ha9 denied the suggestion that Ext.14 and Ext.15 were
prepared later on for the purpose of this case. PW.15 has further
deposed that the phenolphthalein powder is received on a bottle with
label marked as phenolphthalein powder and from the said label they
identifu the phenolphthalein powder. But they do not do any test to
\^t
? ^?''tnt
46
Assdm
Snecicl Iudge'
Guv'al,,uti'
 know as to whether the bottle received contains genuine
phenolphthalein powder or not. PW.15 has furtler deposed that
Sodium Carbonate is also identified in the same process as stated
above. But they do not conduct any test to know as to whether the
bottle received contains genuine sodium carbonate or not. pW.15 has
fufther deposed that he had seen the contents of M.Ext.13 in Court
on the day of his deposition and the contents shows it contains pink
colour liquid. PW.5 has further deposed that he was also shown the
contents of M.Ext.5 and M.Ext,6 and the contents shows that M.Ext.S
contains light pink colour liquid and M.Ext.6 contains light milky white
liquid. PW,15 has denied the suggestion that M.bt.6 contains
colourless liquid. PW.15 has further deposed that the facsimile of the
brass seal contained in Pre Trap and Post Trap Memorandum could
not be read and on the day of his deposition he had ,not seen the
brass seal the facsimile of which was used. PW.15 has further denied
the suggestion that the accused person explained that Rs. 7,0001-
was part of the Challan Fees. PW.15 has further denied the
suggestion that he had not heard the conversation between the
accused and the complainant on the day of occurrence at the place of
(
occurrence. PW.15 has deposed that the distance from the entrance
door to the table of the accused person is about 212.5 mtrs, PW,15
has further deposed that he had not recorded the statement of Nripen
Sarma as he was not the I.O. of this case but Nripen Sarma stated in
presence.of him and the Investigating Officer. PW.15 has denied the
suggestion that Nripen Sarma had not stated anything before him
regarding hearing of the conversation between the accused and the
complainant. PW.15 has fufther deposed that he could not recollect
the serial nds. of the recovered tainted money. PW.15 has denied the
suggestion that complainant had not recorded the conversation
between him and the accused person at the time of pre trap
proceeding and that no conversation that took place regarding

tf demand of bribe. He does not know whether compact disc was

,rr,,l"#:',,A"o- 47
 prepared from the memory card. pW.15 has further denied the
suggestion that they falsely implicated the accused person in this case
in spite of repeated explanation by the accused person that Rs.
7,0001- was part of the Challan fees.
15.31 PW,16 Smti Juri Phukan, has deposed that on ttl09l2017 she was
working as Secretary, Agriculture Department, Govt. of Assam and on
that day she accorded prosecution sanction against accused Durga
Ram Baruah in respect of ACB P.S. Case No.13/2017
UlS.7l13(l)(d)/13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988. Before according prosecution
Sanction, she has gone through all the documents provided by ACB
such as, copy of FIR, memo of Evidence, Seizure lists, pre Trap
Memorandum, Post Trap Memorandum, FSL Report and after
perusal of the entire documents and after applying her mind being
satisfied she accorded prosecution sanction against aCcused Durga
Ram Baruah U/S.19(1Xe) of P.C. Act, 1988. Ext.16 is the prosecution
Sanction Order Dtd.lU0Bl2077 accorded by her and Ext, 16(1) is the
signature of Kulen Talukdar, the then Addl. Secretary, Agriculture
whose signature is known to her as he worked under her. Sri Kulen
Talukdar had forwarded the copy of the Prosecution Sanction Order to
(
the Superintendent of Police, V & AC, Assam.
15.32 In her cross-examination, PW.16 has deposed that at the time of
according Prosecution Sanction Order, she had not asked anything to
accused Durga Ram Baruah and she does not know the amount of
fees required for obtaining Retail Sale Licenses for Fertilizers, Seeds
and Pesticides. PW.16 has further deposed that she had not seen the
letter dtd. 0310712077 issued by Superintendent of Police, Vigilance &
Anti-Corruption, Assam in Court on the day of her deposition. pW.16
has fuftherdeposed that in Ext. 16 the Prosecution Sanction Order
she has not mentioned that she had gone through Pre Trap and post
Trap Memorandum, but along with the letter issued by the S.p, VMC,
Assam, the Pre Trap, Post Trap Memorandum were enclosed along

I with other documents. In Ext. 16 she has not mentioned that the
tl
tr 48
"rY'
Speciol ludge' lssdm
GUx.Att,tli
 letter issued by the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance & Anti-
Corruption, Assam dtd. 03107117 had enclosures, she had given
lut
the Prosecution Sanction after going through the documents. pW.16
has denied the suggestion that without proper verification she had
accorded Prosecution Sanction Order.
15.33 PW.17 Sri Sukumar Sinha, Inspector of Police being the Investigating
Officer has deposed that on 1L10412077 he was posted in Vigilance &
Anti-Corruption, Assam as Inspector of Police and on that day the
then O.C., ACB P.S. cum S.P, V&AC Assam endorsed ACB P.S. Case

No. 1312077 in his name for investigation. In the FIR (Ext.1)

complainant Golok Hazarika stated that he had applied for 3 nos, of
Retail Licenses in the Office of District Agriculture Office, Kamrup for
Pesticides, Feftilizers and Seeds and one Inspector with the surname
Baruah demanded Rs, 9,000/- for preparing of the 3 licenses. Before
registering the FIR, one Preliminary enquiry was done by Inspector
Pinaki Prasad Mitra and only after receipt of the enquiry report this
case was registered and proceeded. Ext. 1(2) is the report submitted
by Inspector Pinaki Prasad Mitra. Ext. 1(3) is the signature of
Inspector Pinaki Prasad Mitra. Ext. 1(4) is the note given by O.C. cum
S.P., VMC, Assam endorsing the same to Pinaki Prasad Mitra for
preliminary enquiry. Ext. 1(5) is the signature of the then O.C, cum
.-c\ S.P., VMC, Assam. After registration of the case, he recorded the
\8
,o statement of the complainant Golok Hazarika and he supported his
FIR and he had also examined the enquiry officer Pinaki Prasad Mitra.
The complainant produced his mobile handset along with one SD Card
containing the conversation between himself and the alleged accused
and he had seized the mobile handset (Lava KKTAO mini mobile
phone) with SIM of Aircel with subscriber No. 9613015818 and one
4GB M-Gold Micro SD Card, made in Taiwan reportedly having
recorded conversation with accused Sri Baruah vide Ext.9, the said
seizure list prepared in presence of witnesses and Ext.9(2) is his

,l signature and thereafter, the mobile handset was given in zimma to

^#\ 49

so*iol C;r' Arson'

Guu'ahari
 Golok Hazarika on 7U0412017 vide Ext. 17, the zimmanama by

which the mobile handset was given in zimma to Golok Hazarika, Ext.
17(1) is his signature and Ext. 17(2) is the signature of complainant
Golok Hazarika. M.Ext.14 is the SD card of the complainant' PW.17
has further deposed that in the meantime, the then Superintendent of
Police, Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, Assam constituted one trap team
with a view to trap the accused red handed. Dy. Superintendent of
Police,Sri Karuna Bordoloi was made the TLO, Dy. S.P. Nandini Deka
as Demonstrator, he(PW.17) being the Investigating Officer,
Inspector Pinaki Prasad Mitra, Inspector Binod Ch' Barman, ASI liten
Das, UBC Bipul Rabha, UBC Ranjit Sinha, UBC Biju Kalita, Constable
Utpal Thowman are members of the trap team' Two independent
witnesses namely Inspector Nripen Sarma from BIEO, Assam and
Inspector Mahendra Mohan Patowary from BIEO, Assam were also
present with the trap team. All the trap team members including the
independent witnesses and the complainant gathered in the chamber
of TLO in the office of the VMC, Assam and the reason of gathering
was explained to all the members and there the complainant
produced 3 nos. of Rs.2,000/- denomination note and 2 nos' of Rs.
500/- denomination note. The TLO noted down the serial nos. of the
above G.C. notes. . The Demonstrator Nandini Deka applied
phenolphthalein powder in the said G,c. notes. The Demonstrator to
show the reaction of phenolphthalein powder washed her hand in the
solution of sodium carbonate and water and then the colour of the
solution turned into pink. The hand washed solution of the
Demonstrator was preserved in a bottle, corked and sealed and
marked as "A" for identification and thereafter, all the members put
their signatures in the said bottle. M,Ext.13 is the said bottle and M.

Ext. 13 (9) is his signature. The Demonstrator again mixed

phenolphthalein powder with the said G.c. notes and thereafter kept
the same in the pocket of the handbag of the complainant as per his
I convenience. The complainant was instructed not to touch the same

q ,(( 50

,orr"lr#,!ri:;,""'
 unless demanded by the accused person. Independent witness
Nripen Sarma was instructed to remain present with the complainant
all along as a shadow witness and the other independent witness
Mahendra Mohan Patowary was instructed to follow the complainant
and the shadow witness by maintaining a distance. The shadow
witness was instructed to give signal by rubbing his face with both
hands if the transaction took place. One pre Trap Memorandum was
prepared narrating all the above facts and they put their signatures in
the said Pre Trap Memorandum. Ext. 7 is the pre Trap Memorandum
and Ext. 7(23) and Ext.7(24) are his signatures. The facsimile of the
brass seal used during pre trap proceeding was obtained in pre Trap
Memorandum and the pre trap proceeding was completed at 02.00
pm on ltl04lL7. PW.17 has further deposed that thereafter, all the
trap team members along with the complainant and the independent
witnesses came towards the office of the District Agriculture office
situated at R.K. Mission Road, Ulubari and reached near the office at
around 02.45 pm, The complainant, Shadow witness and independent
witness entered into the office of the District Agriculture and they
were waiting outside in a scattered manner. After some time on
receipt of the pre flxed signal, the TLO and other trap team members
(
dntered into the office .room where accused Mr. Baruah was sitting
and when the TLO and the other trap team members were conducting
the post trap proceeding he was waiting near the office room of the
accused person. When TLO called him, then he entered into the
office room of the accused person and TLO showed him the recovered
tainted money and asked him to tally the nos. with the already
recorded serial nos. mentioned in the Pre Trap Memorandum. He
tallied the ,Same and found that the serial nos. of the recovered
tainted mon6y tallied with the serial nos. mentioned in the pre Trap
Memorandum. In the meantime, the hand wash of the accused
person was conducted by the TLO and the other trap team members.
One handkerchief of the accused person was also recovered from the
,f
51
X
'{n*t lssam
Socciol ludge'
Grnt'a!rati
 pocket of the accused person where the tainted money were kept and
the handkerchief washed in solution of sodium carbgnate and water in
his presence and then the colour of the solution turned into pink. The
handkerchief washed solution was preserved in a bottle, corked and
sealed and marked as "E". The handkerchief was kept in an envelope
which was marked as "F".
M.Ext.l is the bottle containing the
handkerchief wash solution and M.Ext.1(10) is his signature. PW.17
has further deposed that he also put his signatures in the bottle
containing the hand wash of the accused person. PW.17 has identified
the bottles containing the right hand wash solution and the left hand
wash solution of the accused person respectively as M.Ext.S and
M.Ext,6 and M.Ext.5(10) and M.Ext.6(10) are his signatures, M,Ext.3
is the envelope where the handkerchief was kept. M.Ext. 3(7) is his
signature. M.Ext.2 is the said handkerchief. PW.17 has further
deposed that he had seized the bottles containing the hand wash
solutions of the accused person, tainted recovered G.C. notes in
presence of witnesses by preparing seizure list Ext,5 and Ext.5(8) is
his signature. The accused person also put his signature as Ext.5(6)
and Ext.5(7) in the said seizure list Ext.S. M.E)d.8 to M.Ext,12 are
the recovered tainted money. The recovered tainted money were put
ih an envelope and sea.led and marked as "D". PW.17 has identified
the said envelope as M.Ext.7 and also exhibited his signature therein
as M,Ext.7(7) . The accused as well as the other witnesses also put
their signatures in M.Ext.7 and M.Ext.7(4) is the signature of the
accused person put in their presence. PW.17 has further deposed that
he had seized the handkerchief, the handkerchief wash solution and
one mobile handset of the accused person vide Ext. 3 seizure list and
Ext. 3(7) i8 his signature. PW.17 has further deposed that he had
seized the cbrresponding file relating to application submitted by the
Complainant vide Ext. 4,the seizure and Ext. 4(6) is his signature and
Ext. 4(7) is the signature of the accused person put in his presence.
PW.17 has deposed that he had given the said file in zimma to

x ^dt:d 52

Special ludge' lssdm

Gttttol,.tti
 -

-
Bansidhar Kalita, the then District Agriculture Officer vide Ext. 6, the
zimmanama and Ext. 6(2) is his signature; M.Ext.4 is the file seized
vide Ext. 4. PW.17 has further deposed that he p/epEred one sketch
map of the place of occurrence. Ext. 18 is the said sketch map and
Ext. 18(1) is his signature. PW.17 has further deposed that he
recorded the statement of complainant, independent witnesses and
other witnesses namely Bansidhar Kalita, Ajay Kr. patowary of the
office of District Agriculture office and also recorded the statements
of all other trap team members except Demonstrator Nandini Deka.
One trap laying and Post Trap Memorandum was prepared narrating
the above facts. PW.17 has exhibited the Post Trap Memorandum as
Ext.8 and Ext. 8(19) and Ext. 8(20) are his signatures. pW.17 has
further deposed that in the meantime, with the instruction of TLO,
Inspector Binod Ch. Baman and ASI Jiten Das were sent to conduct
house search of the accused person situated at Hajo, pJknamela and
after completion of post trap proceeding, accused Durga Ram Baruah
was arrested after finding sufficient prima facie materials against him.
PW.17 has fufther deposed that during the course of investigation the
bottles containing the hand wash, handkerchief wash, tainted G.C.
notes and the handkerchief were sent to FSL for forensic expert (
opinion vide Letter No. DGVA/RI|20L7|L492 Dtd, 26104/20t7 and
*r.\ during course of investigation the FSL report was received on
\c
ll} 16106120L7 and the FSL report gave positive repoft regarding
l(()
l$
/*) presence of phenolphthalein in the exhibits, Ext. 13 is the letter
tr@
by
which their office received the repoft from FSL and also exhibited the
report as Ext. 12. PW.17 has further deposed that as sufficient
material was found against the accused person, application was sent
to the concerned authority for Prosecution Sanction being Letter NO
)
DGVAiRI/20L7125L7 Dtd. 03107120L7. Copy of the FIR, copy of
statement of witnesses, copy of the statement of accused, copy of
seizure lists, copy of Pre Trap and Post Trap Memorandum, copy of
FSL report and memo of evidence were sent along with the letter for

1c/
Special 'fudge' lssam
53

Guwalr,oti'
 Prosecution Sanction and the Prosecution Sanction (Ext.16) was
received by him on 7910912017 against accused Euiga Ram Baruah
and after receipt of the Prosecution Sanction Order, he had
submitted Charge Sheet against accused Durga Ram Baruah U/S
7lt3(t)(d)113(2) of P.C. Act. PW.17 has exhibited the Charge Sheet
as Ext.19 and Ext. 19(1) & Ext. 19(2) are his signatures.
15.34 in his cross-examination, PW.17 has deposed that he had not
submitted any document showing any Magistrate authorizing him to
investigate this case. Being a cognizable offence they can investigate
such type of cases. He has denied the suggestion that being an
Inspector he was not authorized to investigate this case. The Govt.
has notified that a Police officer of the rank of Inspector of the
Vigilance Depaftment can investigate case under P.C. Act. PW.17 has
further deposed that he had not brought the above /eferred Govt.
Notification with him and he did not remember the date of the Govt.
notification. PW.17 has further deposed that during the course of
investigation, he had not obtained from the Agricultural Depaftment
the rate of license fees for the 3 licenses during that relevant period.
PW.17 has further deposed that they have not attached any
microphone or recording device with the Complainant when the
Complainant visited the office of the accused person to record their
conversation on the day of occurrence. He had not attached any video
recording device with the complainant on the day of occurrence.
PW.17 has further deposed that he had not made any examination of
the SD card which was seized from the complainant and as such he
had not produced any certificate U/S 658 of the Indian Evidence Act.
PW.17 has fufther denied the suggestion that the accused person had
irtat"O
repeatedly to them that the complainant had not deposited the
enhanced license fees for which he asked the complainant to pay Rs.

9,000/-. PW.17 has deposed that the District Agricultural Officer is

the Licensing Authority and in this case he made the then District
Jr
Agricultural Officer Bansidhar Kalita as a Witness. PW.17 has fufther

t ,,c' 54
fudge, lssan,
Special
Guruahati
 deposed that he had not sent the brass seal used during Pre-Trap and
Post Trap Memorandum to the FSL for examination^ and he did not
know whether there was CCTV camera installed in the office of the
District Agricultural Office, Guwahati. PW.17 has denied the
suggestion that he had not properly investigated the case and
submitted the Charge Sheet without any basis.
15.35 In this case, the defence side has examined one Sri Nabajyoti
Jaganath, SDO, Agriculture, Guwahati as DW.1. He has deposed that
in the year 2017 he was working as Senior Agriculture Development
officer and was attached in Guwahati Office. On Ltl412017 the then
Inspector Durga Ram Baruah was arrested by Vigilante & Anti-
Corruption, Assam in connection with a bribery case. One Golok
Hazarika filed application for obtaining retail license for seeds,
fertilizers and pesticides, As per Insecticides Rules, 1971, license
fees for pesticides is Rs.7,500/-. As per Seed Act, license fees for seed
is Rs.100/-; and as per Fertilizers Act, license fees for feftilizers is

Rs.1500/-. On that day Golok Hazarika paid Rs.100/- for the license of
seeds, Rs.100/- for license of pesticides. But he paid nothing for the
license of feftilizers.
15.36 In his cross-examination, DW.1 has deposed that M.Ext.4 (11) is the
challan of Rs,100/- deposited by Golok Hazarika for obtaining Retail

for selling of seeds and the same was verified by accused

License
Durga Ram Baruah. DW.1 has further deposed in cross that
M.Ext.4(7) is the challan of Rs.100/- deposited by Golok Hazarika for
obtaining Retail License for selling of feftilizers and pesticides and the
same was verified by accused Durga Ram Baruah.

16, As per section 7l of the P. C. Act, 1988 a police officer of Deputy

Superintendent of Police or a police officer of equivalent rank has the
authority to investigate the case. A police officer of Inspector rank can also
investigate the case if he is given authority in general or special by the
Government. In this case the investigating officer Sukumar Sinha (P. W. 17)
/
55

x^Nt 'lssdst
Special ladge,
Guwahati
 is a police officer of Inspector rank. The Government of Assam vide
Notification No PLA (v) LB7lBBl43 dated 21-06-1991 issued by potitical (A)
Depaftment, Government of Assam and vide Notification No. HMA I2glgZlz
dated 22-04-1992 issued by Home (A) Department, Government of Assam
authorize all the Inspectors of Police working in the ACB Police station to
investigate the case. Though the defence while cross-examining the
investigating officer suggested that he has no authority to investigate the
case, but as per above mentioned notifications of the Government of Assam
the I. O. being an Inspector of Police working at ACB Police Station has
authority to investigate the case as per provision of section 17 of the p. C.
Act, 1988.

17. The contents of ejahar (Ext. 1) and oral testimonies of its maker Golok
Hazarika (P. W. 1) show that accused at the relevant point, of time was
working as Agriculture Inspector in the Office of District Agriculture Office,
Ulubari. The complainant is a businessman having establishment under the
name and style as "Barua Joiba Bhandar". On 06-04-20L7 he visited the
office of accused for obtaining licenses for retail sale of seeds, pesticide and
feftilizer and filed applications. On that day the accused visited the place of
his business and demanded an amount of Rs. 9,000/ as bribe for issuing
three licenses. The accused told him that if the demanded money is not paid

W
he would not get the licenses. So, he (P. W. 1) filed the ejahar at ACB Police
station. After receiving the ejahar, OC ACB Police Station entrusted Inspector
of Police Pinaki Prasad Mitra (P. W. 10) to conduct a preliminary enquiry to
verify the authenticity of the allegations against the accused, Accordingly P.

W. 10 conducted preliminary enquiry and submitted his report in the reverse

page of the ejahar which the.prosecution exhibited and marked as Ext. 1 (2).

P. W. 10 has proved the same during trial and authenticated his signature
thereon which has been marked as Ext. 1 (3).

18. During the course of argument learned counsel appearing for the defence
argued that the preliminary enquiry report was cryptic one and the same was

./ 56

1 r\'\
Speciol ludge, lssast
Gut+'a.'fili
 given without visiting the place of occurrence. So, registration a case on the
basis of cryptic preliminary enquiry report was not proper. ^

19. on perusal the preliminary enquiry report {E}t. 1(2)} it appears that the
repoft was not written in detail. simply stated that accused being a public
servant had demanded the bribe from the complainant and thereby abused
his official position. Though the repoft was not in detail; but while the
enquiry officer (P. W. 10) deposed in the Court during trial has stated that
the complainant produced one recorded conversation between one Barua,
Agriculture Inspector and him, He (P. w 10) made a confidential enquiry and
found the allegation was authentic. The defence categorically cross-examined
the enquiry officer (P. W. 10). From his cross-examination it transpires that
he (P. W. 10) did not seize the handset of the complainant and not prepared
compact dick. He did not enquire regarding the amount of Goriernment fees
required for three licenses. He submitted the report before visiting the office
of the accused. He denied the suggestion of the defence that there was no
voice recording between accused and the complainant and without proper
enquiry he submitted the report.

(
20, As stated earlier that the preliminary enquiry report was not in detail. From
the oral evidence of P. W. 10, it transpires that before submitting report the
enquiry officer heard conversation of accused and the complainant recorded
in a mobile hand set and he conducted confidential enquiry. The defence has
failed to ask appropriate cross-question to P. w. 10 against his deposition
that he conducted confidential enquiry before submission of his report. The
enquiry officer should submit the report in detail; but from his oral testimony
it is clear that he cgnducted confidential enquiry which the defence does not
challenge. The enquiry officer was not bound to disclose the confidential
enquiry done by him. From the evidence of the complainant (P. W. 1) it
transpires that he talked to the accused over phone on the day of registration
of the case, it is not mandatory for the enquiry officer to visit the office of
the accused. If the enquiry officer was able to gather prima facie materials in

f 57

,ld\
Speciol fudge' Assam
Gl;lrtcltati
 support of the authenticity of the allegation; so, that amount of information is
sufficient to submit his report. So, the preliminary enquiry report, though not
in detail, will not vitiate the proceeding.

21. After receipt of preliminary enquiry repot, the Officer-in-charge of ACB police
7l t3 (i) (d)/13
station registered a case against the accused under section
(2) of PC Act 1988 and a trap team under the leadership of Karuna Kt.
Bardaloi was constituted. One Nripen Sarma, Inspector of Police BIEO Assam
was made shadow witness and one Mahendra Mohan Patowary, Inspector of
Police BIEO, Assam was made independent witness, DSP Nandini Deka was
the demonstrator, Pinaki Prasad Mitra, Binod Barman, both are Inspectors of
Police of Vigilance and anti-corruption, ASI Jiten Das of Vigilance and Anti-
corruption, constables Bipul Rabha, Biju Kalita, Ranjit Sinha, Utpal Thawmong
were the members of trap team, The prosecution examined /emonstrator
Nandini Deka as P. W. 8. From her oral testimonies it appears that on 11-04-
2017 the members of trap team assembled in the office and TLO Karuna
Bardaloi read over the FIR before the trap team. Thereafter she
demonstrated the reaction of phenolphthalein powder with sodium carbonate
and water before the trap team where the complainant and the independent
witnesses were present. Thereafter, the complainant had produced Rs.
(
7,0A01 consisting of 3 numbers of Rs. 2,000/ denomination note and 2
numbers Rs. 500/ denomination note. She mixed phenolphthalein powder
with the notes and washed her hands in a solution prepared with sodium
carbonate and water. Her hand washed turned into pink which was preserued

,\
br,
ffi in a bottle and sealed the same which was marked as A. She put the tainted
money in a side bag of the complainant as desired by him and instructed him
not to touch the same until demanded by the accused. One pre-trap
memorandum was/prepared iext. 7) where she put her signature {Ext. 7 (11
& 12)). Facsimile of the brass seal of the office was obtained in the pre-trap
memorandum. Thereafter the trap team proceeded to lay the trap and she

stayed in her office. The defence cross-examined her where she stated that
phenolphthalein powder purchased by her office from the firm and after

\'{
f 58
X
^lN'
Special f udge'.Assam
6tttt'c''taf I
 to know the genuinty of the
purchase the office does not conduct any test
powder. She admitted that she does not know that in. the year 1999
phenolphthalein powder was banned in America as it causes cancer.

22, After perusal the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of P. W. B it

appears that her evidence is genuine. She played her role as demonstrator
properly and nothing to disbelieve her. Besides it, during demonstration the
complainant Golok Hazarika (P. W. 1), shadow witness Nripen Sarma (P. W.
3), independent witness Mahendra Mohan Patowary (P W. 13), Bipul Rabha
(P. W. 4), Biju Kalita (P. W. 5), Ranjit Sinha (P. W. 7), Binod Ch. Barman (P.
W. 9), Pinaki Prasad Mitra (P, W. 10), Jiten Das (P. W. 1l)Utpal Thawmong
(P. W. 14) and Karuna Bardaloi (P. W. 15) were present. All of them have
fully corroborated the deposition of P. W. B. All of them have put their
signatures in the pre-trap memorandum (Ext. 7) and the bottle where hand
wash of P. W. 8 was preserved. The investigating officer sent the hand wash
of P. W. B for forensic examination and the Scientific Officer of DFS, Assam

Dr. Rupali Bhattacharya (P.W. 12) who tested the hand wash has deposed
that she detected positive test of sodium ion, carbonate ion, water and

phenolphthalein in the liquid contain in the bottle marked as "A".

23. P, W. 15 Karuna Bardaloi who was the TLO has deposed that on 7L-04-20L7
at around 2.15 p.m. the trap team members proceeded to the place of
occurrence in different vehicles and reached the office of the accused at
about 2.45 p.m. The complainant and the shadow witness entered into the
office of the accused. As the complainant (P. W. 1) and shadow witness
Nripen Sarma (P. W. 3) entered into the room of the accused; so, oral
testimonies of P. W. 1 and P. W. 3 are very important. From the oral
testimonies of the complainant and shadow witness it transpires that they
were instructed by the demonstrator what to do. The complainant has

deposed that after entry to the room of the accused he asked the accused
whether his licence for which he applied was ready or not and then the
accused asked him whether he brought the demanded money or not. Then
J
I
.rv
.N 59

tr "it lssam
Spuial ludge,
Guv'alluti
 the complainant handed him over the tainted money amounting to Rs. 7,000/
to the accused which he carried in his hand bag. The accused after receiving
the tainted money kept the same into his right side pocket of his wearing
trouser and then the trap team member who was with him gave a signal to
the other members of trap team. P. W. 3 Nripen Sarma, the shadow witness,
has deposed that the complainant entered into the room of the accused and
he followed him. He saw that the complainant handed over the tainted
money to the accused and the accused after looking right left kept the same
in the pocket of his trouser and then he gave pre fixed signal to other
members of trap team. The defence categorically cross-examined both the
complainant and the shadow witness, In cross-examination the complainant
simply denied the suggestion of the defence that the accused did not demand
bribe from him. He has further denied the suggestion of the defence that he
had given Rs. 7,000/ to the accused forcefully on his table' But confirmed
that he had given money to the accused while he was sitting in his chair with
his table. The shadow witness (P. W. 3) in his cross-examination has deposed
that he had not heard the conversation between the complainant and the
accused. The accused was sitting in a room which is about 15x40 feet. There
in
present about 7/8 staffs. The accused received money while he was sitting ./
\
his table. From the oral testimonies of the complainant and the shadow
witness it transpires that the. accused on the day of the alleged incident
received money from the complainant while he was sitting in his table. The
room was big one, Of course the shadow witness did not hear the
conversation between the complainant and the accused at the time of
handing over the tainted money to the accused and it is natural as the
shadow witness was a little distance from the complainant'

24. From the evidencd on record it transpires that after receipt of tainted money
by the accused from the complainant, the shadow witness gave fixed signal
to the trap team members and then the trap team members entered into the
room of the accused and caught him. TLO Karuna Bardaloi (P. W. 17) has
deposed that after getting signal from the independent witness he along with

,l 60

T^rs
loecial ludge'.Assam
6uttcltatr '
-

I. o. sukumar sinha entered into the room of the accused, challenged him
that he demanded and accepted Rs. 7,0001 as bribe money from the
complainant. They disclosed their identity and on being 5sRed the accused
identified him as Durga Ram Baruah, Agriculture Inspector. Thereafter the
vigilance team prepared two solutions of sodium carbonate and water in two
separate bowls and asked the accused to wash his hands. when accused
washed his right hand the colour of solution turned into pink. But colour of
solution of left hand remained as milky white. The hand wash of the accused
was preserved in two clean bottles and put identification mark as B and c.
The prosecution exhibited the bottle where right hand solution was preserved
as M. Ext. 5 and the bottle of left hand solution as M. Ext. 6. on being asked
the shadow witness stated before the officers of vigilance team that the
accused received the tainted money from his right hand, covered the same
with a handkerchief and kept the same in the right pocket of hjs trouser. As
directed by TLO, as deposed by him, the shadow witness recovered the
tainted money from the right pocket of the trouser of the accused. But the
shadow witness has deposed that when he approached tbwards the accused
with a view to recover the money, then the accused himself brought out the
same from his pocket. Though there is a little variance of deposition between
TLO and the shadow witness regarding recovery of money; but the fact is (
that the,tainted money was recovered from the pocket of the accused. As the
witnesses deposed in the Court after a long period; so, such type of
discrepancy occurs which does not shake the basic point of the prosecution
case. The TLo and the I. o. tallied the serial numbers of recovered money
with the numbers of pre-trap memorandum. Thereafter the investigating
officer seized the tainted money. During trial the prosecution exhibited the
recovered tainted money in the Court and marked the same as M. Ext. 8 to
M. Ext. 12. The hapdkerchief'of the accused was also washed and the colour
of the solution turned into pink. The handkerchief washed solution was
preserved into a bottle and for identification marked the same as E. during
trial the bottle was exhibited and marked as M. Ext. 1.

I,l
,d 61

X,f
Speciel ludge, lssan
Guwaltati,
 25. Independent witness Mohendra Mohan Patowary (p. w. 13) and shadow
witness Nripen Sarma (P. W. 3) though are police officers, but at the relevant
point of time they were working in the establishment of BIEo. There is no
relation between the establishment of
BIEo and Vigilance and Anti-
corruption. so, the status of both P. w. 3 and p. w. 13 are independent
witnesses in the case in hand. The independent witness (p. w. 13) has
deposed that the complainant and the shadow witness entered into the room
of the accused and after received prefixed signal from the shadow witness,
he gave signal to the members of trap team. At the time of the incident the
members of trap team were outside of the room of the accused and after
getting signal they entered into the room of the accused. So, except the
complainant and the shadow witness other witnesses had not seen the
incident of receiving the tainted money by the accused from the complainant.
From the oral testimonies of the trap team members P. Ws, 4, S: 7,9, 10 and
14 it appears that they were present while the hands of the accused were
washed in the solution of sodium and water, All of them have corroborated
the deposition of rlo that the right hand wash of accused turned into pink;
but his left hand wash remain milky white.

\
26. The vigilance team conducted the trap laying procedure in presence of the
then Deputy Director, Directorate of Agriculture Bangshidahar Kalita (p. W. 2)
and Agriculture Inspector Ajoy Kr. Patowary (P. W. 6). From their oral
testimonies it transpires that the vigilance team washed the hands of accused
in liquid solution, Liquid solution of one hand turned into pink and other
remained as it is, P. W. 6 has deposed that in his presence Rs. 7,000/ was
recovered from the pocket of the accused. The handkerchief of the accused
was also washed and the coleur of the liquid of the handkerchief turned into
pink. Both the agriculture officers put their signatures in the bottles where
the vigilance team preserved hand wash and handkerchief wash of the
accused and also put their signatures in the seizure lists.

27.The defence cross-examined all the witnesses. But failed to break the

,/

xN
,it\
Speeial fudge. lssam
Guwaltali.
 evidence of the prosecution so far caught the accused after receiving the
tainted money/ recovery of tainted money from his pocket, preparation of
seizure lists, procedure of laying trap are concerned.

28. The investigating Officer Sukumar Sinha (P. W. 17) has deposed that he
seized tainted money vide Ext. 5, handkerchief of the accused vide Ext. 3,
one file relating to application submitted by the complainant vide Ext. 4 and
gave zimma of the said file to the District Agriculture Officer vide zimmanama

Ext. 6, he prepared the sketch map of place of occurrence vide Ext, 18. He
prepared post trap memorandum which the prosecution has exhibited as Ext.
8. He sent the seized tainted notes, hand wash of the demonstrator, accused
and handkerchief wash to FSL for forensic examination and received the
report vide Ext, 12. Ext. 13 is the letter of FSL by which the repoft was
forwarded by DFSL, Assam to Vigilance Office. He (P. W. L7) obtained
prosecution sanction order against the accused vide Ext. 16 and ultimately
submitted charge sheet against the accused under section 7lL3 (1) (dy13(2)
of P. C. Act vide Ext. 19,

29. The prosecution examined Dr. Rupali Bhattacharya, Scientific Officer of DFS,

Assam as P. W. 12. Her deposition shows that she examined 6 exhibits in

connection with ACB P. S. Case No. 13/2017. She received four sealed
bottles containing liquid, one envelope containing five GC notes and one
envelope containing handkerchief. She found positive test of sodium ion,
carbonate ion, water and phenolphthalein in the liquid of three bottles. In
one bottle she found negative test of phenolphthalein; but positive test of
sodium ion, carbonate ion and water. She found positive test of
phenolphthalein in.examined-GC notes and positive test of phenolphthalein,
sodium ion and carbonate ion in examined handkerchief, She has exhibited
her report as Ext. 12 and proved the same by exhibiting her signature
thereon as Ext. 12 (1). She has also exhibited the forwarding letter of her
office as Ext. 13 and also exhibited the signature of Joint Director G. N, Deka
13 (1). While she was cross-examined by the defence she has
as Ext. 13

n
(,s
1 rfll\
Speci al fudge. lssam
Guu,cltati
 admitted that she had not mentioned the procedure applied for examination
of exhibits and also not mentioned the specific date of examination. She has
denied the suggestion of defence that she did not follow the procedure.

30. After perusal the repot of Scientific officer and the deposition of TLO and

other witnesses it transpires that the Scientific officer found presence of

phenolphthalein in the liquid solution of right hand wash of the accused,
hand wash of the demonstrator, hand wash of handkerchief, handkerchief
and recovered tainted notes; but, did not find the presence of
phenolphthalein in the left hand wash of the accused.

31. After conclusion of the recording the evidences of the prosecution witnesses,
the statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 Cr. P. C. In his
statement the accused denied the allegations that he demanded money from
the complainant. But he admitted that he received Rs. 7,000/ from him as
challan fees and assured him that the complainant would pay him the rest
amount of fees. So, receipt of Rs. 7,0001 by the accused from the
complainant is an admitted fact,

32, The prosecution by adducing eye witness and forensic evidence is able to
establish the fact that the accused received an amount of Rs. 7,000/ from the
complainant which the accused admitted in his examination under section
313 Cr. P. C.

33. As per allegation the accused received bribe from the complainant, But the
defence denied receipt of bribe. According to the defence the accused
received the money from the complainant as challan fees.

34. Now the moot question is to determine whether the money which the
accused received from the complainant was bribe money as claimed by the
prosecution or genuine challan money which the accused had to pay to get

x, rN(
Special ludge' lssam
Guu'altati '
 his licenses which he applied for as claimed by the defence?

35. It is an admitted fact that the complainant is a businessmun unO he applied

for licenses for selling feftilizer, seeds and pesticide from the office of the
Agriculture where accused was the Inspector of Agriculture.

36. The accused in his statement recorded under section 313 Cr. P. C has stated
that on 06-04-2017 the complainant submitted a challan of Rs. 100/ for the
licence of pesticide. He told him that he had to submit a challan of Rs. 7,500/
for retail pesticide licence and Rs. 1,500/ for wholesale fertilizer licence, On
L7-04-20t7 the complainant handed over him an amount of Rs. 7,0001
asking him to prepare challan and assured him that he would pay the rest of
Rs. 2,0001 in subsequent date. The defence examined one Nabajyoti
Jaganath who is the Senior Agriculture Development Officer ul O. W. 1. His
deposition shows that as per Insecticides Rules, 1971 licence fees for
pesticide is Rs. 7,500/. As per Seed Act, licence fees for seed is Rs. 100/ and
as per Fertilizer Act, licence fees for fertilizers is Rs. 1,5001. On t1-04-20L7
the complainant paid Rs. 100/ for licence of seeds and Rs. 100/ for licence of
pesticides. Buthe paid nothing for the licence of fertilizer. In cross-
\
examination he admitted M. Ext. 4 (11) which is a challan of Rs. 100/
deposited by the complainant for obtaining retail licence for selling seeds and
the same was verified by the accused. M, Ext. 4 (7) isthe challan of Rs. 100/
deposited by the complainant for obtaining retail licence for selling of fetilizer
and pesticide and the same was verified by the accused. During investigation,
the investigating officer seized a file (M. Ext, 4) from the office of accused. M.

Ext. 4 (3) is the application of the complainant for grant of licence of sale
stock or distribute pesticide. The complainant deposited the challan of Rs.

100/ with his application which the accused verified and accepted. If the
licence fees for pesticide was more than Rs, 100/, then the question arises as
to why the accused instead of rejecting the licence accepted the same.
During cross-examination, the complainant (P. W. 1) has described the
procedure the deposition of challan amount. The procedure of deposit of

,{
?
"d$
Special fudg?, lssam
Guwahgti.
 challan in general is that the applicant fills up the challan form after enquiring
proper head of deposit from Agriculture office, who the;eQfter passed
the
same. Thereafter the same is to produce before the Treasury office
and after
being passed by Treasury office the amount is to deposit in sBL From the
cross-examination of P. W. 1 it transpires that the applicant has to deposit
the challan amount at sBI after verification of the same by the office of
Agriculture. If that is the procedure, then the question arises as to why the
accused received the money amounting to Rs. 7,oool from the complainant.
Itis not the duty of the accused to deposit the challan money. During cross_
examination the complainant has denied the suggestion of the defence that
the accused told him that he would help him in depositing the challan as for
his mistakes he had to visit the bank for two occasions. But there is no
cogent evidence to accept the plea of the defence that the accused in good
faith received the money from the accused. There found no enrhity between
the complainant and the accused that the complainant falsely implicated the
accused' The complainant is a simple businessman and his sole interest was
to get his licenses as applied for. If the complainant received the proper
service from the accused; so, question of filing complaint against him does
not arise. As there was no enmity in between the complainant and the
(
accused; so, it is difficult to hold that without any reason a businessman filed
a complaint of demanding bribe against an Inspector whose service he
requires in future too.

37. From the evidence on record it transpires that in the room of the accused
there were other employees. If the accused intended to help the complainant
by depositing the challan amount and received the money with that intention,
then his colleague sit nearby.him might have been known that fact and he
could examine his /colleague to prove his plea. But the defence has not
examined any of his colleagues sits near to him. Here the evidence of shadow
witness is important, shadow witness (p. w, 3) has deposed that the accused
received the tainted money from the complainant after looking into right left
and kept the same in the right pocket of his trouser. If it was the genuine

.f
x lN'
Soecial !udge'-lssam
Guwsltoti
 money, so it is not necessary to keep the same in his pocket and at the time
of receiving the same it is not necessary to accept the same by looking right
and left. while accused has given his statement under section 313 cr. p. c.
he has stated that he visited the farm house of the complainant in his own
vehicle and the complainant paid for the fuel in the petrol pump. Inspection
of the site was the official duty for the accused and he received the price of
fuel from the complainant which shows his conduct.

38. After meticulous perusal of the evidence on record it emerges that the
accused who is a public servant first demanded money from the complainant
and it is an admitted fact that he received an amount of Rs. 7,000/ from the
complainant and thereafter he was caught red handed, money was recovered
from him, the numbers of recovered notes were tallied with the numbers of
notes written in pre-trap memorandum, the forensic officer fouM presence of
phenolphthalein in the recovered notes, right hand wash of the accused and
wash of handkerchief. On the other hand the defence has failed to establish
the plea that the accused received the money from the complainant just to
help him.

39, During argument learned counsel for the accused by citing a decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Couft passed in Mohmoodkhan Mahboobkhan pathan
vs. State of Maharashtra (1997) 10 Supreme Court Cases 600 has
submitted that no presumption under section 20 of PC Act can be drawn
against the accused.

ffi
(g
40. If the prosecution is able to establish the fact that the accused who is the
N
public servant on the day of the incident demanded and accepted
gratification other than legal remuneration beyond all reasonable doubt; so,
question of drawing presumption under section 20 of P. C. Act does not arise.

41. Another mandatory provision to prosecute the accused under section 7lL3 of
PC Act is prosecution sanction against him. Oral testimony of I. O. shows that

67

r
Special ludge, lssam
Guv'ahati '
 -

he obtained prosecution sanction order against the accused before filing the
charge sheet. The prosecution during trial examined Juri_phuka (p. w. 16)
who was working a Secretary, Agriculture Department, 'Government of
Assam. Her deposition shows that she examined all the documents produced
before her by the investigating officer and after applying her mind and being
satisfied, she accorded prosecution sanction order against the accused under
section 19 of P. c. Act, 1988. she has exhibited the prosecution sanction
order as Ext. 16. she has also exhibited the signature of Kulen Talukdar,
Addl. secretary, Agriculture who forwarded the copy of prosecution sanction
order to the sP vigilance and Anti-corruption, Assam. Her evidence was
tested by the defence by cross-examining her where she admitted that at the
time of granting prosecution sanction order she did not ask anything to the
accused. In her prosecution sanction order she had not mentioned that she
had gone through the pre and post trap memorandums. But she confirmed
that she had given prosecution sanction order after going through the
documents.

42.P. W. 16 at the relevant point of time was the Secretary, Agriculture

Depatment to the Government of Assam and competent to grant prosecution
sanction order against the accused. As, at the time of granting prosecution
(
sanction she had gone through the documents produced before her and after
applying her mind and being satisfied granted prosecution sanction order
against the accused; so, there is no infirmity in the prosecution sanction
order granted against the accused.

43. After meticulous perusal the evidence on record it appears that at the time of
the incident the accused was. working as Agriculture Inspector in the District
Agriculture office,'Ulubari, he demanded and received gratification in the
form of cash from the complainant which was illegal and the accused
accepted the gratification in the form of cash as a motive to give licence to
the complainant for pesticides etc. The prosecution is able to establish the
charge against the accused under section 7 of the P. C. Act.

Y,N
Spccial ludgc, lssam
Guwdll'uti
 44. Another charge against the accused has been framed unde_r s-ectbn 13 (2) of
the P. C Act. The prosecutbn has to show that the accused committed
criminal mbconduct being a publh servant, he, by corrupt or illegal means,
obtains for himself any valuable things or pecuniary advantage. In the case in

hand i[ has already been esbblbhed that the accused \ ES a publb servant at
the relevant point of time and he received money from the complainant and
he uas caught after reeMing the money. No doubt, demand of money with a
prom'se to bsue lkence to the complainant by the accused b the glaring
example of criminal m'sconduct of accused. The accused being a publb
seruant has to do his duty honestty; but by demanding an amount of Rs.
9,000/ and subsequently receMing an amount of Rs. 7,0001 from the
complainant who uas a genuine appl'cant for lhence in hb offhe chamber
during offbe hour shows hb corrupt pract'rce whbh he did for hb pecuniary
advantage.

45. In v'ew of the above, lt b safely concluded that the prosecutbn 's able to
establ'sh the offence as defined under sect'pn 13 (1) (d) (iD of P. C Act
1988 and thereby abE to prove the charge against the accused undersectbn
13 (2) of the P, C. Act

46. As the prosecut'pn has able to eshbl'sh the charge against the accr.sed

under sectbnsTlT3 (2) of P. C. Act, 1988 beyond all reasonable doubt; so,
accused Durga Ram Baruah
's found guilty under sa'rl sect'pns and he b

convbted accordingly under sad sectbns.

47.Heard accrsed/convict on quantum of sentence.

48. Also heard learned counseb appearing for the paftbs.

49. Accused/conv'rt has stated that he b 57 years oH and at the verge of

,^i
4,N lssam
toerial'Itd'r,,'
Guv'alnti'
 retirement and he will not repeat such type of offence in future and prayed to
excwe him. itt

50. Learned counsel for the prosecutbn has submilted that the accused/corubt
shoufl be given adequate pun'shment so that ll becornes an example for the
corrupt Publb seruant.

51. On the other hand learned counsel for the defene has suhnl[ted that the
's at the verge of retirement and has no criminalantecedent; so, has
accused
prayed to dealwith him leniently consilering hb age.

52. Prescribed punishment under sectbn 7 of P. C. Act, 1988 b impr'sonment

which shall be not less than three years but whhh may extend to swen years
and shallalso liable to flne.

53. Likew'se prescribed pun'shment under sectbn 13 (2) of P. C. Ac! 1988 b

imprbonment wfrhh shall be not less than four years but whbh may oxtend
to ten years and shall also liable to fine'

54. Tfu accrced/corvbt 's a person of 57 years. Conskiering hb age t b decijed

to impose the folbwing Punbhment.

ORDER

55. The prosecutbn b abh to establbh the charge against the accused Durga
's
Ram Baruah unde/ sectbns'7113 (2) of P' C. Ac! 1988 and accordingty he

convicted under sail sectbns.

56. TIE acused/convbt b to undergo rBorous lmprbonment for 3

sentenced
(three) years and abo pay fine of Rs. 7,000/ (rupees ss/en thousand) in

TN(
fudge' Assan'
Soecial
Guwalrati '
 default rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) month under section 7 of p. C. Act,
1988. ,,

57. The accused/convict is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4

(four) years and also pay fine of Rs. 10,000/ (rupees ten thousand) in default
rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) months under section 13 (2) of p. C. Act,
1988.

58. It is ordered that both the sentences will run concurrently.

59. The period underwent during investigation and trial shall be set off as per
law.

60. Destroy the seized bottles of contained liquid substance and seized
handkerchief after appeal period,

61. Seized tainted money amounting to Rs. 7,0001 was the money of the
complainant. As phenolphthalein powder was administered on the tainted (
money and the notes were exhibited; so, I. O. is directed to exchange the
same in a bank as per rules and return the same to the complainant after
Pe;
".'.:- ::t (,) expiry of the appeal period.
lo
l(o
t@

ffi /*t 62. Return other seized articles

after expiry of appeal period.
to the persons from whom it was/were seized

63. Liability of the bailor is over and he is discharged accordingly

64. Furnish a free ceftified copy of the judgment and order to the
accused/convict as per provision of law forthwith.

7t

Y,'N'.{ lssam
Special fudge'
Guu'akati
65. Furnish another copy of judgment and order to the District Magistrate,
Kamrup (M) for information and necessary action, if any, from his side.
./ t:

66. Given my hand and seal of this court today the 23'd day of November 2020.

Special Judge,

Assam, Guwahati.
Soecial iudge' .lssot''
Gwua!'nti

72
 rN THE COURT OF SPECTAL JUDGE, ASSAM, GUWAHATT
,,, ;
SPECIAL CASE NO: 2512017
lnrsrNe our or nce p. s. case No rgrzorz
UNDER sEcTIoNs:7 lL3 (2) OF P. C. ACT 1988

STATE OF ASSAM

vs.
DURGA RAM BARUAH

ANNEXURES
Prosecution witness:-
P, W. 01: Golok Hazarika,
P. W. 02: Bangshidhar Kalita,
P. W. 03: Nripen Sarma,
P, W. 04: Bipul Rabha,
P. W. 05: Biju Kalita,
P. W.06: Ajoy Kr. Patowary,
P. W. 07: Ranjit Sinha, ./
P. W. 08: Nandini Deka,
P. W.09: Binod Barman,
P. W. 10: Pinaki Prasad Mitra,
P. W. 11: Jiten Das,
P. W, 12: Dr. Rupali Bhattacharya,
P, W. 13: Mahendra Mohan Patowary,
P, W. 14: UtpalThawmong,
P. W, 15: Karuna Bardaloi,
P. W. 16: Juri Phukan &
P. W. 17: Sukumar Sinha.
Prosecution witness:-
D. W. 01: Nabajyoti Jaganath.

J
o nVY
0fl
73

o-
so ect at

"lr;l?,lo:,,"'
Prosecution of Exhibits:
1. Ext.1 is the F.I.R. , .

2. Exts.2 is the printed format of F.LR.

3. Ext.3, Ext. 4, Elt.s, Ext. 9& Ext. 10 are the Seizure lists.
4. Ext.6 & Ext. 17 zimma namas.
5. Ext.7 is the pre-trap memorandum.
6. Ext.B is the Post Trap Memorandum.
7. Ext.11 & Ext. 14 Order,
B. Ext.12 Report of FSL
9, Ext.13 Forwarding letter.
10. Ext.15 Requisition letter.
11. Ext.16 Prosecution sanction order.
L2. Ext.l8 Sketch map and
13. Ext.19 Charge sheet.
Material Exhibits:
1. M. Ext. 1 Bottle containing handkerchief wash solution,
2. M. Ext. 2 Handkerchief of accused,
3. M. Ext. 3 Envelope where kept the M, Ext. 2,
4. M. Ext. 4 Office file.
5. M. Ext. 5 Bottle containing right hand wash of accused,
6. M. Ext. 6 Bottle containing left hand solution of accused,
7. M. Ext. 7 Envelope where tainted money kept,
8. M. Ext. 8, 9, 10,11 & 12 Tainted money,
9. M. Ext. 13 Bottle containing hand wash &
10. M. Ext. 14 S. D. Card.

DEFENCE EXHIBITS :

1. Ext, A Overwriting on letter dated 11-04-2017.

/atV\{
Judge,
Special

Assam, Guwahati.
Special ludge' lsson
Guwahati
74