Kalyanaraman Ganesh vs Central Bureau Of Investigation Cbi on 16 July, 2026

    0
    9
    ADVERTISEMENT

    2. The case of the appellant is that he was working as the Chief General
    Manager, Telecom, North-East Task Force, at Guwahati, and retired from his

    service on 30th of September, 2005, and that he is presently about 83 years of
    age. The appellant also stated that before he joined as the Chief General
    Manager, Telecom at Guwahati, he was working in the Department of Telecom,
    Government of India, at various places across the country, for nearly 28 years
    without any blemish in his service career.

    SPONSORED

    3. It is the further case of the appellant that while he was working as the
    Chief General Manager, Telecom, Guwahati,and was proceeding from Guwahati
    to Chennai, on 06.09.1997, he was intercepted at Guwahati Airport by the
    Page No.# 3/53

    Security Superintendent stationed at the said Airport, as well as by another
    Security Officer, along with one Sub-Inspector of Assam Police, attached to
    Airport Security. The appellant further stated that he was detained at the Airport
    as he was carrying cash in his baggage and that on finding the same, the
    Executive Magistrate was called to the Airport and an amount of Rs. 25,31,200/-
    (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Thirty One Thousand Two Hundred Only) was seized
    from his baggage at the Airport Security Enclosure in presence of police
    personnel. Thereafter, it is stated that the said Executive Magistrate lodged a
    complaint which was treated as First Information Report (shortly as “FIR”)
    before the Azara Police Station, being registered and numbered as Azara PS
    Case No. 74 of 1997, under Section 7/13(1) (e) of the PC Act. In the said FIR, it
    was stated inter alia that the seized money was given as illegal gratification to
    the appellant by 5 (five) contractors named therein. The appellant, thereafter
    was taken into police custody on the same day, i.e., on 06.09.1997, and the
    Deputy Superintendent of Police took up the investigation as the Investigating
    Officer. The appellant further stated that on the next day, i.e., on 07.09.1997, an
    additional amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lacs Only) were seized from
    his residence by the Investigating Officer. Thereafter, the charge sheet was
    submitted in which it was inter alia stated that the amount of Rs. 29,31,200/-
    (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs Thirty One Thousand Two Hundred Only) was
    disproportionate assets of the appellant.



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here