Debi Prosad Dey, J. - (1.) Challenge in this revisional application is the order dated 16.12.2017 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Tamluk, Purba Medinipore being the designated Court under West Bengal Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2013 whereby and whereunder learned Judge has rejected the application of Pincon Spirit Limited for deleting the name of Pincon Spirit Limited from the list of accused persons and to unlock the bank accounts, registered office and plant and machinery of Pincon Spirit Limited.
(2.) Learned senior Advocate Mr. Mukherjee appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that Pincon Spirit Limited is in no way connected with alleged violation of the provisions of the Act under reference and several employees have been debarred from working in the said factory resulting in severe loss to the state exchequer. It is further submitted that a report was called for from the investigating agency and the investigating agency raised no objection if the factories are made operational subject to some conditions but learned Court below did not adhere to such report of the investigating agency and thereby erroneously rejected the application for making the factories operational. In that view of this case Mr. Mukherjee submitted that necessary order may be passed for making the factory operational in order to save the employees of such factory as well as the revenue generated from such factory in favour of the State. Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Swasta Gopal Mukherjee further contended that Pincon Spirit Limited is a part of some other companies of the said group and the factory of Pincon Spirit Limited is being operated by the fund, collected from various depositors and accordingly learned trial Court was justified in rejecting such application.
(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor has also drawn the attention of the Court with regard to the pendency of writ petition no. 24110(W) of 2016 in the Division Bench of this Court. It is submitted that it is yet to be decided by the Hon'ble Division bench about the status of the petitioner and accordingly it would not be wise to interfere with the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Division bench by passing any order in this regard.;