KANCHAN CHAKRABORTY,J - (1.) : 1. ONE F.I.R. ---- ONE INVESTIGATION --- TWO CHARGE-SHEETS AND THAT TOO FILED IN TWO DIFFERENT COURTS AT DIFFERENT PLACES - --- IS REALLY UNHEARD OF. Mr. Himangshu De, learned Counsel on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, CBI failed to explain the situation.
(2.) PRADIP Kumar Das, General Manager, UCO Bank, Zonal Office, Kolkata lodged one FIR with CBI against Ajoy Kumar Bayen, Managing Director of M/S. Nivediata Diagnostic Research Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Sumanta Sen, Proprietor of M/s. Medico Electronics, D. Mukherjee, the Branch Manager, Kankurgachi UCO Bank, R. N. Majumder, the then Branch Manager Kankurgachi UCO Bank, Kolkata, Shri Ghosh, the then Deputy General Manager, UCO Bank Regional Office, Kolkata and others alleging therein that they in connivance with each other defrauded the Bank and thereby caused wrongful loss of the Bank to the tune of Rs. 5,27,68,900/-. The case was investigated into by the CBI but it filed two charge-sheets -- one in Alipore Court and another in Sealdah Court. The charge-sheet which was filed in the Sealdah Court ended as : 3. " During investigation criminality on the part of accused public servants or Shri Sumanta Sen, Proprietor of M/S. Medico Electronics could not be found in the matter relating to M/s. Nivedita Diagnostic and Research Hospital (P) Ltd. and hence, there names have been incorporated under column 2 of this charge-sheet. A separate Charge-sheet has been submitted before the learned Special Judge, CBI, 1st Court, Alipore, Kolkata on the other allegations in the FIR, related with M/s. Nivedita Advance Medical Institute and M/s. Medico Electronics." In the charge-sheet before the Addition Chief Judicial Magistrate at Sealdah, this petitioner Goutam Ghoshal has been shown as an accused in column 1. Shri Ghosh, Debasish Mukherjee, R. N. Majumder, Sumanta Sen are shown as persons not sent up for trial in connection with the case. In view of the last paragraph of the charge-sheet which has been reproduced earlier, a separate charge-sheet has been submitted before the learned Special Court, CBI, Fast Court, Alipore, Kolkata on other allegations in the FIR related with M/s. Nivedita Advance Medical Institute and M/s. Medico Electronics. This Court is not concerned with charge-sheet filed in the Court of learned Special Judge at Alipore wherein the petitioner is not named as an accused. Gautam Ghoshal has come up with an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of the proceeding against him wherein charge-sheet is filed in the Court of learned ACJM, Sealdah on the following grounds : a) that no offence, prima facie, is made out in the FIR and charge-sheet as far as he is concerned; b) that the CBI had no authority, whatsoever, to investigate into the matter without taking prior approval of the State of West Bengal and the learned Magistrate has power also to act on the charge-sheet filed by the CBI where no prior approval or consent of the State Government concerned was taken; c) that one FIR and one investigation can not resulted in two charge-sheets filed in two different Courts against different persons which ex facie is neither permissible in law nor acceptable in any manner;
(3.) I have carefully gone through the FIR lodged by the Regional Manager of the UCO Bank with rapt attention. This Court also has got an opportunity to leaf through the case docket produced by Mr. De, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the CBI. Even making strenuous efforts, this Court has failed to find out that any case, whatsoever, has made out against this petitioner by the CBI. Only one witness in course of his examination under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., stated that this petitioner was having a joint account with Ajay Kumar Bayen and that account was exclusively operated by none but Ajoy Kumar Bayen. On the basis of that statement only, the CBI thought it proper to add the name of this petitioner to the name of A. K. Bayen as an accused in the charge-sheet. I must say that no offence, in fact and in substance, even prima facie is made out against this petitioner either in the FIR or in the charge-sheet under Sections 120B/420/463 and 471 of IPC. The offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was not found correct by the CBI itself. Therefore, I find substance in the submission of Mr. Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. It is settled principle of law that High Court is invested with plenary power to quash Criminal Proceeding pending in inferior Courts where the allegations in the FIR or the complaint even if they are taken on their face value and accepted uncontrovated in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged. This principle has been taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court consistently right from its decision in off quoted judgement in State of Hariyana Vs. Bajanlal, reported in 1992 Supplementary (1) SCC 335, till this date. Accordingly, in view the facts above, the proceeding against the petitioner Gautam Ghoshal is liable to be quashed. Mr. Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner raised the authority of the CBI in the matter of investigation into the case directly without prior consent of the State Government and power of the learned ACJM, Sealdah to act on a charge-sheet filed by the CBI in violation of the provisions of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946.;