Decided on August 01,1961

Narendra Narayan Bhattacharjee Appellant


B.N.BANERJEE, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was employed as a sub -inspector of excise. He, along with several others, was prosecuted on a charge under Section 46 of the Bengal Excise Act, 1909, read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, inter alia, for having unlawfully imported ganja. He was, however, discharged of the charge, under Section 243(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by an order passed by D.P. Chatterjee, a presidency magistrate, dated 9 May 1956, with the following observations: Hence on a consideration of the entire evidence on record, I am clearly of opinion that the prosecution case against the accused persons is thoroughly rotten and utterly unacceptable. The entire prosecution story against the accused persons has been built upon the confession of Ramen Biswas and K. Tombi Singh. On their own admission they were involved in trafficking in ganja, in complicity with other persons, They seemed to have shielded their real associates and have incriminated these accused persons who. I have found, are completely innocent.
(2.) BEFORE the petitioner was prosecuted as aforesaid, the petitioner had been suspended, by an order of the Commissioner of Excise, dated 24 June 1955, which I set out below: Whereas it appears that you, Narendra Narayan Bhattacharjee, along with others have been accused of committing a crime of criminal conspiracy of unlawfully importing, possessing, transporting and/or selling non -duty paid ganja at Calcutta and other places in pursuance of which conspiracy various overt acts were committed during the period from December 1951 to August 1954 and that sanction under Section 92 of the Bengal Excise Act and consent under Section 196A(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code have been obtained for your prosecution in Court by the order of the Governor, dated 24 June 1955, you are hereby suspended with immediate effect until the termination of the criminal proceeding which is being instituted against you. During the period of suspension you will be entitled to a subsistence grant of one -fourth of your pay plus dearness allowance as may be admissible. Thereupon, the petitioner applied, on 2 July 1955, to Superintendent of Excise, Balurghat, for permission to leave the station of his duty and to stay at Calcutta, until further order. The said application is annexure A(3) to the affidavit -in -reply filed by the petitioner. On that application, the Superintendent of Excise passed the following orders: You are permitted to leave the station after you make over charge to Himangshu Kumar Pal, sub -inspector of excise, Raigunj. This has the concurrence of Excise Commissioner, vide his order, dated 1 July 1955. (Sd.) J.N. Chowdhury, 2 July 1955.
(3.) AFTER the termination of the criminal prosecution, the petitioner made a representation to the Commissioner of Excise praying for his reinstatement. No reply was given to the representation. He was, however, served with memo., being No. 348E, dated 17 July 1956 (which was received by the petitioner on 20 July 1956) by the Collector of Excise, respondent 3, to the following effect: He was permitted to stay away from headquarters till the disposal of the criminal case instituted against him with others. The criminal case has since been disposed of and he is therefore directed to report himself at Balurghat by 25 July 1956 (forenoon) positively failing which proceedings shall be drawn up against him for non -compliance of the order. He should also explain why he stayed away from his original place of posting even after the criminal case started against him was disposed of. Further he should explain why appropriate action shall not be taken against him for addressing a representation for his reinstatement direct to the Commissioner of Excise.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.