ASISH BARAN MUKHERJEE, J. - (1.) THE application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is made with a view to quash the proceeding being C9 of 1997 pending in the Court of the Special Judge, 2nd Court, Calcutta under Section 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1947.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he joined Durgapur Steel Plant in 1960 as Lower Division Clerk and thereafter was transferred to Calcutta Office in the Account Department. Subsequently he was promoted as Upper Division Clerk and posted in the P.P. Section. He was consequently promoted as Office Superintendent.
(3.) IN 1964 the C.B.I. registered a case against the petitioner being R.C. Case No. 40 for alleged offence under Section 5(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 5(2) of the said Act alleging taking of illegal gratification by a public servant while discharging his duties as a public servant. A search was conducted on 20th August, 1974 in his residence and on 21st of August, in his office but no incriminating materials could be detected and consequently a 'Nil' Seizure List was prepared. The petitioner however obtained an order of Anticipatory Bail. Since no material could be collected, the proceeding was dropped but the document seized by the C.B.I. were not returned to the petitioner and after one year in 1975, a new' case was started under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) being R.C. Case No. 3/75. It is alleged that the complaint is illegal as the complainant Sri M.K. Sen neither investigated the case nor was a member of the investigating team. No statement of the petitioner was ever taken in R.C. Case No. 3/75. He was put under arrest on 4.6.75 and subsequently hospitalised for treatment from where he was released on bail. The learned Judge before whom the complaint was filed noted the illegality and opined that cognizance of the case could not be taken by an order dated 11.8.77. The complaint nowhere mentions that the petitioner being a public servant committed the said offence. The petitioner also had no occasion to submit any statements asset either at the time of joining the service or doing his office tenure since that was not required under the Rules of the Company. In the subsequent complaint the C.B.I. relied on the document seized in connection with earlier case of 1974. No permission was taken by the C.B.I. from the Special Court for utilising the documents and materials seized in connection with the previous case.;