 |
| Aizawl District Court ( https://djaizawl.nic.in/) |
Aizawl December 19, 2023: Eight former Executive Members and Chief Executive Member (CEM) of the Chakma Autonomous District Council (CADC) were found guilty in the high-profile fund embezzlement case of 2018. The decision was announced today by Dr. HTC Lalrinchhana, Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) at the Aizawl District Court. Accused No. 1, the late Buddha Lila Chakma, who previously served as Member of District Council (MDC) from Vaseitlang Constituency, faced disqualification in the seventh CADC election. Despite legal challenges, the Gauhati High Court rejected the disqualification following Chakma's appeal to the court and ordered the reimbursement of his salary and wages. However, a subsequent investigation by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) revealed alarming discrepancies. According to CADC Rules, 2003, Chakma's entitled earnings amounted to Rs. 14,03,494.00, but records showed a disbursement of Rs. 63,34,914.00. The CADC Executive Committee, in a meeting on June 1, 2018, raised eyebrows by approving an additional Rs. 49,31,420/- for Chakma, contrary to legal provisions. This decision led to charges against then CADC Chief Executive Member (CEM) Shanti Jiban Chakma and eight other executive members under various sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code. The accused individuals, including Shanti Jiban Chakma, Hiranand Tongchangya, Sanjeev Chakma, Kusum Lota Chakma, Onish Moy Chakma, Buban Kumar Chakma, Mohan Chakma, and Anil Kanti Chakma, faced charges related to corruption and criminal conspiracy under section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (a) of PC Act r/w 120 B of IPC and section 409 r/w 120B of IPC. The main accused, Buddha Lila Chakma, passed away on October 10, 2[year], leading to the dismissal of charges against him. In its verdict, the court emphasized the detrimental impact of political figures exploiting public service for personal gains. The judgment highlighted the corrosive effects on public administration, citing this case as a glaring example of government nepotism, corruption, and fraud.