- (1.) Special (CBI) Case No.63 of 2011 (RC No. 28 (A) of 2007 pending before the learned Judge, Special (CBI) Court, Asansol arising out of RC 0102007A0028 dated 24.07.2007 under section 13(2) read with section 13(1(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the order dated 15.07.2013 passed therein rejecting the petitioner's prayer for discharge of the petitioner has been challenged in the instant case.
(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that on the basis of a written complaint lodged by one Sri S. Bhattacharya, Inspector, CBI/ACB/Kolkata on or about 24.07.2007 alleging that during the investigation of RC 0102007A0036 (hereinafter stated as RC 36), the residential premises of the petitioner was searched and it transpired that during the period from 01.01.1996 to 30.07.2003, while he was working in different capacities in the Department of Posts and finally as Assistant Post Master, Raniganj, HO Post Office, Raniganj, Asansol Division the petitioner had amassed assets amounting to Rs.22,21,996.40 in his name or in the name of his wife and children, which was disproportionate to his known sources of income and he was not likely to satisfactorily account for the same and thereby committed offences punishable under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
(3.) Pursuant to investigation, CBI submitted a charge-sheet against the petitioner in the instant case and cognizance was taken thereon. Thereafter, the petitioner prayed for discharge before the trial court. The trial court by an order dated 15.07.2003 held that there are materials that, prima facie, disclose offences punishable under section 13(1)(e) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and hence rejected such prayer for discharge. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has assailed the impugned proceeding on the following issues:- (i) The FIR and the consequential investigation was initiated against the petitioner after he had superannuated from service on 31.07.2003. According to him, on the date of registration of the FIR, the petitioner was no longer a public servant and, therefore, could not have been prosecuted for the alleged offences under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. (ii) He further argued that the investigation conducted by the Inspector of Police was not in consonance with the proviso to section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and hence, unauthorized and illegal. He relied on State Inspector of Police, Vishakapatanam vs. Surya Sen Karan Karri, 2006 7 SCC 172. (iii) He also contended that the provision of section 4 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 was ignored in course of investigation and the matter was not reported to the Central Vigilance Commission at any material point of time. (iv) Finally, the FIR was registered by the CBI without resorting to a preliminary inquiry, which according to the learned counsel was mandatory. In this regard, he has relied on P. Sirajuddin ETC. vs. State of Madras ETC., 1970 1 SCC 595, Ashok Tshering Bhutia vs. State of Sikkim, 2011 CrLJ 1770, and a Constitution Bench decision dated 12.11.13 in Lalita Kunari vs. Govt. of UP & Ors. (W.P.(Criminal) No.68 of 2008). He submitted that the preliminary inquiry was of paramount necessity inasmuch as he was not given any opportunity to satisfactorily account for the assets standing in his name and that of his family prior to registration of FIR although the same is one of the ingredients of the offence punishable under section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. ;