SOMNATH GUIN Vs. MONAJ KUMAR SENAPATI
LAWS(CAL)-2012-11-20
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on
November 21,2012
Somnath Guin
Appellant
VERSUS
Monaj Kumar Senapati
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
J TH ZWART AND OTHERS VS.INDRANI MUKHERJEE [REFERRED TO]M.BALAKRISHNA REDDY VS.DIRECTOR,CBI,NEW DELHI [REFERRED TO]
GOUTAM GHOSAL VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. BHAJAN LAL [REFERRED TO]
S W PALANIKAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
AJAY MITRA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. PRAKASH P HINDUJA [REFERRED TO]
M NARAYANDAS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
ZANDU PHARMACEUTICAL WORKS LTD VS. SHARAFUL HAQUE [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION VS. NEPC INDIA LTD [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION VS. RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAVA IAS [REFERRED TO]
VEER PRAKASH SHARMA VS. ANIL KUMAR AGARWAL [REFERRED TO]
INDER MOHAN GOSWAMI VS. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL [REFERRED TO]
ALL CARGO MOVERS INDIA PVT LTD VS. DHANESH BADARMAL JAIN [REFERRED TO]
B SURESH YADAV VS. SHARIFA BEE [REFERRED TO]
EICHER TRACTOR LTD VS. HARIHAR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
HARMANPREET SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
DALIP KAUR VS. JAGNAR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. COMMITTEE FOR PROTECTION OF DEMOCRATIC [REFERRED TO]
THERMAX LTD VS. K M JOHNY [REFERRED TO]
BABUL CHOUBEY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
P RAVINDRAN VS. INSPECTOR OF POLICE S P E C B I COCHIN [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION VS. LAXMI DHAUL [REFERRED TO]
UMA SHANKAR GOPALIKA VS.STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
BENGAL INDIA GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD & ORS VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ORS [LAWS(CAL)-2017-10-8] [REFERRED TO]JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Praying for quashing of the criminal proceeding being - CBI/ BS&FC/ Kolkata Case No--RCBSK 2o11E0001 , these two applications have been filed by ( a ) Somenath Guin and ( b) Vijoy Kumar Kanoria under section 482 of the Criminal Proceedure Code. Since both the applications have arisen out of same proceedings and points taken are similar , both the applications are disposed of by the common order below.
(2.)The proceedings was initiated by Manoj Kr. Senapati ,the Chief Manager , Punjab National Bank , Midnapore Branch agaist the petitioner Somenath Guin (petitioner in CRR-3677/11) and other four persons. In course of the investigation of the case, Vijoy Kr. Kanoria ( petitioner in CRR-3699/11) was added to as another accused. The offences allegedly have been committed by them are under sections- 420 , 471 & 120B 0f I.P.C. read with Section 13(2) & 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988.
Contention of Mr. Basu , Ld. senior Counsel for the petitioners, mainly , was twofold :--- firstly , no case under sections 120B , 420 & 471 of the I.P.C. read with section 13(2) & 13 (1 ) (d) of the P.C.Act is made out against the petitioners even if the uncontroverted allegations in the F.I.R. are accepted on their face value and , secondly, the C.B.I. has no authority to conduct investigation into the case in view of the mandatory provisions of section 6 of The Delhi Special Police Establishment Act,1946.
(3.)Mr . De Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of C.B.I., contended that there are materials in abundance in the F.I.R. suggesting strongly that criminality is attributed to the petitioners and that C.B.I. is empowered to investigate into the case in view of the consent accorded under section 6 of the Act by Govt. of West Bengal vide its order no:----- 1869PL dt.21.4.1960. It was further submitted by Mr. De that civil outfit of the matter cannot denude its criminal profile and change the character of the case. Therefore, there is no impediment in initiating the criminal action against the petitioners who miappropriaed public exchequers in clandestine manner .
(2.)The proceedings was initiated by Manoj Kr. Senapati ,the Chief Manager , Punjab National Bank , Midnapore Branch agaist the petitioner Somenath Guin (petitioner in CRR-3677/11) and other four persons. In course of the investigation of the case, Vijoy Kr. Kanoria ( petitioner in CRR-3699/11) was added to as another accused. The offences allegedly have been committed by them are under sections- 420 , 471 & 120B 0f I.P.C. read with Section 13(2) & 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988.
Contention of Mr. Basu , Ld. senior Counsel for the petitioners, mainly , was twofold :--- firstly , no case under sections 120B , 420 & 471 of the I.P.C. read with section 13(2) & 13 (1 ) (d) of the P.C.Act is made out against the petitioners even if the uncontroverted allegations in the F.I.R. are accepted on their face value and , secondly, the C.B.I. has no authority to conduct investigation into the case in view of the mandatory provisions of section 6 of The Delhi Special Police Establishment Act,1946.
(3.)Mr . De Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of C.B.I., contended that there are materials in abundance in the F.I.R. suggesting strongly that criminality is attributed to the petitioners and that C.B.I. is empowered to investigate into the case in view of the consent accorded under section 6 of the Act by Govt. of West Bengal vide its order no:----- 1869PL dt.21.4.1960. It was further submitted by Mr. De that civil outfit of the matter cannot denude its criminal profile and change the character of the case. Therefore, there is no impediment in initiating the criminal action against the petitioners who miappropriaed public exchequers in clandestine manner .
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.