R.K.BAG, J. - (1.) The petitioners have preferred this revision under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order dated March 22, 2012 passed by learned Judge, Special Court (C.B.I), at Alipore, South 24 Parganas in Special Case No. 21/2008 and praying for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Special Case No. 21/2008 under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the said Special Court.
(2.) The backdrop of the present revisional application is as follows: On October 11, 2006 the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., SEB, Kolkata registered FIR No. RC 0102006A0034 dated October 11, 2006 under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner no.l ­ Tej Prakash Shami. It is alleged in the complaint that the petitioner no.1 being public servant acquired disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.10,62,000/- during the check period from February 1998 to June 2006. The Superintendent of Police authorized one T. J. Ghosh, Deputy Superintendent of Police to carry out the investigation under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. On December 22, 2008 one Inspector of Police, CBI, SEB, Kolkata submitted charge sheet no. 50/2008 against both the petitioners before learned Judge of the Special Court. On March 22, 2012 learned Judge of the Special Court framed charge against petitioner no.1 for the offence under Section 13(2) and Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Both the petitioners pleaded not guilty when the contents of the charge were read over and explained to them. I am informed that out of eighty -seven prosecution witnesses, nine prosecution witnesses have already been examined before the trial court. It is relevant to point out that the petitioner no.2 happens to be wife of the petitioner no.1. Both the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the above criminal proceeding and for setting aside the order dated March 22, 2012 by which charge was framed against both the petitioners.
(3.) Mr. Sudipto Moitra, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the Inspector of Police has carried out the investigation and submitted charge sheet in violation of the provision of Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He further submits that the Investigating Officer has enlarged the scope of check period without having any authorization in this regard from the Superintendent of Police under second proviso to Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He argues that there is variation between First Information Report and the charge sheet with regard to the amount of disproportionate assets and the check period, which was taken into consideration for calculation of disproportionate assets. He also submits that the sanctioning authority mechanically granted sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act without considering the materials collected during investigation by the Investigating Officer. The specific submission of Mr. Moitra is that the Investigating Officer has failed to collect any material to prima facie establish the charge of abetment against the wife, i.e. petitioner no.2 in accumulating disproportionate assets by the husband, i.e. petitioner no.1. According to Mr. Moitra, the charge under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) and Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act framed by learned Judge of the trial court is liable to be set aside. He has cited the decision of the Supreme Court in "Seeta Hemchandra Shashittal V. State of Maharashtra" reported in (2001) 4 SCC 525 in support of his above contention.;