A.K.Dutta, J. -
(1.)-The petitioner-accused, Sat Paul, (hereinafter referred to as petitioner) by this Revisional Application under Sections 395 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Code) has prayed for quashing of the relevant proceedings, being Special Case No. 8 of 1987 pending before the learned Judge, First Special Court, 24-Parganas, on the grounds made out therein.
(2.)The petitioner contends that he was appointed as a Probationer in Indian Customs and Central Excise Services (Group-A), appointed as such by letter No. A-12025/3/84-AD. II dated July 11, 1984 after having passed the I.A.S. and Allied Services Examination in 1983. While posted as Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, "E" Division, Calcutta, on probation, he has been involved in the relevant case on the allegations made in the F.I.R. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that on 23rd July, 1986 some officials of the Central Excise, Preventive Department, had come to the Office of the Informant at M/s. Capital Electronics (Manufacturing Division), P. 161, V.I.P. Road, Scheme VII-N, Calcutta-700054 and had seized some documents and detained some T.V. Sets pending investigation. The petitioner was the In-charge of the said team. While leaving the said Office, the Petitioner had asked the Informant to meet him at his Office at Bamboo Villa on the next date. The Informant had, accordingly, met him at his (petitioner's) Office on the next day, accompanied by a partner of M/s. Capital Electronics. The Petitioner told the Informant that he would not release the seized goods and continue to harass them if he is not paid the sum of Rs. 4,000/- only. The Informant had met the petitioner on 2.7.86 as well for release of the seized goods, and the petitioner had agreed to pass an order of the release goods on payment of Rs. 4,000/- only to him for the purpose. He had asked the Informant to meet him at his Office for the said purpose. On the basis of the written Complaint of the Informant about the demand made by the petitioner, a trap was laid on 29.7.86 in presence of two independent witnesses after observing necessary formalities. The Petitioner had demanded and accepted the said Rs. 4,000/- only at his Chamber from the Informant and the conversation between them was heard by the witnesses ; and the Petitioner was caught red handed while accepting the bribe of Rs. 4,000/- only. He has thus been prosecuted therefore.
(3.)The Petitioner was arrested in connection with the relevant case on 29th July, 1986 and was remanded to police custody. As a result thereof, he was placed under suspension. By order dated 17th February, 1987 the service of the petitioner was terminated without any departmental proceedings; the legality, validity and correctness of which was challenged by him (Petitioner) before the Central Administrative Tribunal at New Delhi. The said Tribunal by judgment and order dated 18th September, 1989, in the relevant case, being No. 361 of 1987, had set aside/quashed the termination order dated 17th February, 1987 passed by the concerned Authority. The Tribunal had further directed the preservation of status quo immediately before the date of the impugned order of termination passed in the matter. In view of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the concerned Authority by order dated 20th October, 1989 had directed the continuation of the suspension order of the Petitioner with effect from 29th July, 1986. While on suspension, the Petitioner had moved another application before the Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta, being No. 1142 of 1991. On receipt of the direction of the said Tribunal, the Authority concerned had issued an order dated 15th February, 1992 revoking the suspension order of the Petitioner, and had posted him back to Calcutta as Collector of Central Excise. Meanwhile, on completion of investigation of the case, the C.B.I. had submitted charge sheet against the Petitioner-accused dated 30.3.87 for the alleged offences punishable under Section 161, I.P.C. and Section 5(2), read with Section 5(1) (b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as Act II of 1947). And, it appears from paragraph 7 of the Revisional Application that admittedly the examination-in-chief of 9, out of 10 charge sheet witnesses, had already been completed up to June 1992.