H.N.SEN, J. - (1.) THE Rule obtained by the accused petitioner is directed against an order dated December 16, 1974 passed by Shri C. Samaddar, Fifth Additional Special Judge, Calcutta rejecting the prayer of the accused petitioner for copies of the statement of witnesses and documents.
(2.) THE petitioner, who was the Manager of Employees' State Insurance Corporation having its office at 61, Diamond Harbour Road, Calcutta, was arrested by C.B.I., S.P.E., Division Calcutta on 9 -7 -73 in connection with case No. C.B.I./S.P.E. R.C. No. 49/72 under Sections 120 -B/409, 420, 419, 467, 407, Indian Penal Code and was produced before the Sub -divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ali -pore, 24 Parganas but was released on bail. Upon a police report filed by one Shri D. Bagchi, D.S.P., C.B.I., S.P.E. Calcutta through Shri K. L. Varma, Public Prosecutor, the learned Judge on the basis of the allotment order received prior thereto, took cognisance of the offence under Sections 409/120 -B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 against all the accused persons including the accused petitioner and summoned the accused including the petitioner. The petitioner entered appearance and filed a petition on 16 -12 -74 before the learned Judge, Special Court asking for copies of the statements of witnesses and documents on which the Prosecution wanted to rely under Section 251 -A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The learned Judge rejected the said prayer holding that the case will not proceed under Section 251 -A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 but under Section 244 and subsequent sections of Chapter XIX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which are the corresponding sections of Section 252 onwards of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
(3.) MR . Someraj Dutta, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has urged before us that the order of the learned Judge was wrong and erroneous and should be set aside inasmuch as after incorporation of Section 7 -A in Act II of 1947 as amended by the Anti -Corruption Laws Amendment Act, 1964 (Act 40 of 1964), the procedure to be followed would be the procedure laid down in Section 251 -A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and as such, the learned Judge ought to have granted the prayer made by the petitioner for copies. It was further submitted that the provisions laid down in the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949 being inconsistent with the Provisions laid down in Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 will be impliedly repealed and should be treated as void under Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India. Mr. Manas Ranjan Chakravarty, learned Advocate appearing for the State, however, supported the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge and has submitted before us that there was no conflict between the provisions laid down in the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949 and the provision laid down in Section 7 -A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 as amended.;