- (1.) JUDICIAL Magistrate, Assam has filed this revision application challenging the order dated 10.11.2008 passed by the learned Magistrate, whereby, the learned Magistrate has rejected the prayer of the accused to set aside the charge sheet on the ground that the investigation was carried out by an incompetent officer.
(2.) HEARD Mr. J Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. AC Buragohain, learned Standing Counsel for the CBI. I have also perused the impugned order, FIR, Charge sheet and other documents annexed with the revision application. On the basis of certain informations, the CBI, ACB, Guwahati registered a case under various provision of IPC read with Section 13(2) and 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against two persons namely, Sri TN Bhutia and the petitioner Sri Tarun Chandra Goswami. The prosecution case is that after the termination of Sri Tarun Chandra Goswami from Donyi Polo Mission, Itanagar, the petitioner in conspiracy with Sri TN Bhutia, Assistant Provident Commissioner had manipulated the date of birth so that the petitioner can get pension. As per the FIR, the date of birth was manipulated from 1.3.1958 to 01.03.1949 to show that he had completed 50 years of age and on the basis of manipulated records, he has drawn certain retiral benefits and also pension of Rs. 476/- was sanctioned to him in the year 2000.
(3.) THE case was registered by the Superintendent of Police and the case was endorsed to one Sri Jayanta Paul, Sub-Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB. Since the law required taking of permission from a Magistrate under Section 17 of the PC Act., the Investigating officer submitted a petition before the learned Special Judge, CBI on 3.3.2006, whereupon the learned Special Judge authorised the Sub- Inspector to investigate the case. Pursuant to the said authority, the Sub-Inspector of police investigated the case and submitted the Final Report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 only under Section 420/471 of the IPC. In other words, the petitioner was not charge sheeted under the panel provisions of the PC Act. Since the panel provision under the PC Act were not included in the charge sheet, the case was filed in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Assam. On receipt of the process, the accused appeared and filed a petition on 24.3.2008 taking a plea that the investigation was defective and as such, the charge sheet should be quashed. However, this prayer did not find favour of the learned Magistrate and the petition was rejected vide impugned order dated 10.11.2008.;