Guwahati: A petition filed by suspended Assam Police Service (APS) officer Sukanya Das challenging an order passed by the Special Judge, Assam, to change her status from a witness to an accused in the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) cash-for-jobs case has been rejected by the Gauhati High Court.
“There is nothing in the impugned order which shows that the learned Special Judge has taken cognisance of offence, under Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against the present petitioner for the purpose of trial against her,” the single judge bench of Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita observed, upholding the impugned order passed by the Special Judge.
As per the facts of the case, one Angshumita Gogoi had lodged an FIR at Dibrugarh police station on October 27, 2016, alleging that one Naba Kumar Patir had contacted her over the phone asking Rs 10 lakh for getting appointed to the post of a dental surgeon through the selection process conducted by the APSC.
A case was thereafter registered under Sections 7, 13(1)(b), (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, read with Sections 120B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The investigating officer (IO) had on February 28, 2017, laid the supplementary charge sheet where the APS officer Sukanya Das (present petitioner) was shown as a prosecution witness in the list of witnesses of the said supplementary charge sheet.
On January 4, 2018, another supplementary chargesheet was laid against some of the accused persons wherein again the name of the petitioner was shown as a prosecution witness in the list of witnesses of the said chargesheet.
A Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted by the state government in September last year to probe the case. The petitioner thereafter received a notice under Section 41A of CrPC from the SIT, CID to appear before it on December 1, 2023.
When the petitioner appeared before the SIT on December 4, 2023, she was arrested by the SIT on the ground that during the investigation, sufficient evidence was found against her to the effect that she had obtained a job in the Assam government through unlawful means in complicity with the other accused persons in the case.
The petitioner was initially remanded to police custody for five days and thereafter sent to judicial custody on December 8, 2023. However, by the impugned order dated January 17, 2024, she was granted bail with certain conditions.
On January 11, 2024, the investigation officer (IO) of the case filed an application before the Special Judge, Assam, praying for changing the status of the petitioner from a witness to an accused and then to prosecute her in the case.
The Special Judge by impugned order dated January 17, 2024, allowed the petition filed by the IO to change the status of the present petitioner from that of a witness to an accused.
The petitioner thereafter challenged the said order in the present criminal petition before the High Court.
Senior advocate A. M. Bora, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that in the present case the Special Judge by allowing the petition filed by the IO on January 11, 2024, and treating the present petitioner as an accused, took cognisance of the offence against the present petitioner without there being any police report under Section 173(8) of CrPC before it.
He further submitted that the petition, dated January 11, 2024, filed by the IO cannot be treated as a report under Section 173(8) of the CrPC, and hence, “the Special Judge had erred and acted beyond the jurisdiction by allowing the said petition by the impugned order.”
It was further submitted that a person can be shown as an accused in a case, where a chargesheet has already been laid, only by two modes – firstly, by way of a report under Section 173(8) of CrPC, after completion of further investigation, and secondly, under Section 319 of CrPC during inquiry or trial, if it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried with other charge-sheeted accused.
Dear Reader,
Every day, our team at EastMojo travels through rain, rough roads, and remote hills to bring you stories that matter – stories from your town, your people, your Northeast.
We do this because we believe in truthful, independent journalism. No big corporate backing, no government pressure – just honest reporting by local journalists who live and breathe the same air you do.
But to keep doing this work, we need you. Your small contribution helps us pay our reporters fairly, reach places others ignore, and keep asking the tough questions.
If you believe the Northeast deserves its own fearless voice, stand with us.
Support independent journalism. Be a Member.
Thank you,
Karma Paljor
Editor-in-Chief, eastmojo.com
On the other hand, the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) submitted that only the status of the present petitioner has been changed from that of a witness to that of an accused as sufficient materials are there against her to do so.
It was further submitted that the case against the petitioner is still at the stage of further investigation and the question of taking cognisance of offence against the present petitioner for the purpose of trial has not yet arisen.
Also Read | Assam and Manipur CMs react to Sam Pitroda’s controversial remark on Indian diversity