Gauhati High Court orders fresh consideration of the Army ration graft case involving alleged illegal gratification in Nagaland
DIMAPUR — The Kohima Bench of Gauhati High Court has set aside the discharge of Lt Col Amit Kumar Sharma, then commanding officer of 50 Coy ASC (Supply), Type C, Dimapur, and his brother Kapil Kumar Sharma in a case alleging illegal gratification in the procurement of rations for troops deployed in Nagaland, directing a special court in Dimapur to reconsider the discharge matter within two months.
In a judgement pronounced on Thursday, Justice Helen Daungliani quashed the November 18, 2024, order of the Special Judge, CBI, Dimapur, and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.
The High Court observed that the earlier order did not show that the special court had assessed the material in the CBI chargesheet against the ingredients of all the offences alleged. It is worth noting that the order does not determine the guilt of either accused or direct that charges be framed.
The case originates from a report submitted to the CBI in February 2018 alleging that Army Service Corps officials had received illegal gratification of approximately INR 82 lakh in connection with the procurement of fresh and dry rations for troops deployed in Nagaland. The alleged payments were said to have been made in cash, kind and through bank transactions between July 2012 and September 2016, when Sharma and another officer served successively as commanding officers of the unit.
Also read: High Court reserves judgment on former Nagaland University professor’s compulsory retirement plea
Following an investigation, the CBI named three persons as accused — Sharma, his brother Kapil Kumar Sharma and contractor Jai Prakash Singh. The chargesheet alleged that the brothers had acted in conspiracy with Singh and that INR 10 lakh had been obtained as illegal gratification. The agency invoked provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The special court discharged the two brothers in November 2024, holding that there was insufficient material to proceed against them. The CBI challenged the order before the High Court.
The CBI argued that the special court had focused largely on whether an INR 10 lakh transaction was a friendly loan or illegal gratification, without properly assessing the other material in the chargesheet. It also objected to the trial court's reliance on an earlier criminal complaint filed by Singh, which did not form part of the CBI's final report.
The defence maintained that there was no evidence of demand or acceptance of illegal gratification by Sharma. It argued that the money had been transferred to a third-party account, that no recovery had been made from him and that the chargesheet did not establish a link between the transaction and any official act. It also disputed the allegations of conspiracy and cheating.
The High Court noted that the special court had treated the possibility of the INR 10 lakh transfer being a loan as a basis for discharging the accused from the entire case, without demonstrating that the material relating to the other alleged offences had been considered.
It observed that a court deciding a discharge application need not write a detailed judgement on every charge, but must show that it has considered the relevant allegations and supporting material. Where several offences are alleged, the court must assess whether there are grounds to proceed on each; a finding that some charges are groundless does not justify discharging an accused from the entire case if material exists to proceed on others.
Setting aside the discharge order, the High Court directed the Special Judge, CBI, Dimapur, to reconsider the matter afresh. Given the time already spent on the case, the High Court stated that it expects the exercise to be completed within two months of receipt of the judgement and relevant records.