GUWAHATI: The Gauhati High Court has upheld an order by the Special Judge of Assam, allowing the change of status for suspended Assam Public Service (APS) officer Sukanya Das from witness to accused in the APSC cash-for-job case. The case involves various charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
A single-judge bench comprising Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita noted that the Special Judge's order did not indicate that the court had taken cognisance of the offence for the purpose of trial. The order merely changed Das's status from witness to accused to facilitate further investigation.
Click here to join our WhatsApp channel
The case stems from an FIR filed on October 27, 2016, by Angshumita Gogoi at the Dibrugarh Police Station, alleging that Naba Kumar Patir contacted her over the phone and requested a payment of Rs. 10 lakh for her appointment as a dental surgeon through the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC). Subsequent investigations led to the arrest of several individuals, with supplementary charge sheets indicating that Das was initially listed as a witness.
However, a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was formed in 2023 to further investigate the case, leading to Das's arrest on December 4, 2023. Following her arrest, the Investigating Officer (IO) filed a petition with the Special Judge to change Das's status from witness to accused. The Special Judge granted this request, leading to Das's challenge in the Gauhati High Court.
The senior advocate representing Das argued that the Special Judge took cognisance of the offence against her without the proper legal procedures, noting that no police report under Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) had been submitted. Additionally, the advocate contended that the Special Judge had not exercised its powers under Section 319 of the CrPC, which allows the court to summon additional individuals during the course of a trial.
ALSO READ: Centre To Withdraw Letter To States On Ayurvedic Ads After SC Rap
The Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) countered that the change in status was justified, given the sufficient evidence against Das. The APP emphasised that the further investigation into the matter was ongoing, and the change in status did not indicate that the court had taken cognisance of the offence for trial.
Ultimately, the Gauhati High Court upheld the Special Judge's decision, stating that the order was intended to facilitate further investigation. The court concluded that there was no error or irregularity in the Special Judge's order and dismissed Das's petition.
