G. R. BHATTACHARJEE, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners Shri Pawan Kumar Ruia filed this revisional application for quashing the investigations and proceedings in Case Nos. RC/12/eow/86, RC13/ EOW/86, RC/14/eow/86 and RC/15/eow/86 all dated 17th December,1986. All these proceedings were started under sections 120b/420/468/ 471 I. P. C. and under section 5 (1) (d) read with section 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 on the basis of four separate F. I. Rs. lodged by one Shri D. Kasiappan, Dy. General Manager of Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Limited, Calcutta. This revisional application was originally heard by a Division Bench of this court comprising of P. Khastgir and A. M. Sinha, JJ. the petitioner took the objection that the allegations made in the F. I. Rs. are not true and at any rate do not, primafacie, make out any cognizable offence and as such the F. I. Rs. and the investigations are liable to be quashed. A plea was also taken that the Central Bureau of Investigation (C. B. I.) with whom the F. I. Rs. were lodged and who took up the investigations are not competent to investigate the cases. Both the learned Judges of the Division Bench in their separate orders dated 8. 5. 1991 however held that the C. B. I. was competent to investigate the matter. The learned Judges also did not consider it proper to quash the entire investigation. There was however a difference of opinion between the learned Judges on the question whether investigation should be continued against the present petitioner. While A. M. Sinha, J. held that no case was made out for staying the investigation against the petitioner, P. Khastgir, J. was of the view that the investigation proceedings should be swyed so far as present petitioner is conccrned. At the same timc the learned Judge also made it abundantly clear that the order would not prevent the investigating authorities to further in vestigate into the matter and if they were able to collect sufficient materials against the petitioner after such investigation they might apply for variation and/or vacation and/or recession of the order. In view of this difference of opinion between the learned Judges of the Division Bench as to whether the investigations should be stayed against the petitioner the matter was referred to a learned Third Judge being M. G. Mukherji, J. Having regard to the nature of the matter the learned Third Judge recommended the matter to be referred to a larger Bench. Accordingly the Honble Chief Justice has assigned the matter to this Bench which is preside over by M. G. Mukherji, J.

( 2 ) IT has been argued by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the material allegations in the concerned F. I. Rs. are not true and that the allegations do not prima facie disclose commission of any cognizable offence and as such the F. I. Rs. and the investigations are liable to be quashed. Here it is necessary to look to the allegations made in the F. I. Rs. The allegations made in all the F. I. Rs. are more or less the same. Only the periods, amounts and figures involved arc different. As a sample case we look to the allegations made in the F. I. R. in proceeding RC/12/eow/86 dated 17th December,1986. The F. I. R was recorded by the C. B. I. on the basis of written complaint lodged by Shri D. Kasiappan, Dy. General Manager, Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Limited. It is stated in the F. I. R that it appears from records that during the period from January 1985 to September 1985 the then Calcutta Branch Manager (of the said bank) Mr. Charles Solomon had misused his official position and power and committed fraud, conspiracy and cheating in a preplanned manner thereby cheating the bank. It is further stated in the F. I. R. that during the concerned period Mr. Solomon while acting as the Manager and by misusing his power and official position, had cheated, committed fraud and acted to the prejudice of the banks interest with a view to secure personal gain wrongfully and dishonestly, inter alia, i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document