Back
High Court Of Calcutta
Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J.
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION - Appellant
Versus
JOYDEB DASGUPTA - Respondent
C. R. R. 2787 Of 2002
Decided On : 06/30/2006
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 - Section 3, 4, 26, 26A - WEST BENGAL CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (SPECIAL COURTS) ACT, 1949 - Section 2(1), 2(2) - CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1952 - Section 5, 6, 13 - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - Section 300 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - Article 20(2) - DISCHARGE OF ACCUSED - JURISDICTION OF SPECIAL COURT - VALIDITY OF APPOINTMENT - DELAY IN TRIAL - RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL - DOUBLE JEOPARDY - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Senior Manager of Canara Bank, was accused of entering into a criminal conspiracy with unknown persons and sanctioning a loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- against a forged Kamdhenu Deposit Receipt (KDR). The charges against him included sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, and 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accused was initially discharged by the trial court on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction to try the offense under the Prevention of Corruption Act. However, a fresh chargesheet was filed, and the accused was again discharged on the grounds of speedy justice and lack of jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court allowed the revisional application filed by the petitioner and set aside the impugned order of discharge. The court held that the Special Court had jurisdiction to try the offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as the appointment of Special Judges under the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949, was validated by the West Bengal Amendment Act of 1994. The court further held that the delay in the trial was not attributable to the accused and that the right to speedy trial did not mean that the accused could not be tried at all. The court also held that the principle of double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India was not applicable as the accused had not been tried by a competent court in the previous proceedings.
Issues: 1. Whether the Special Court had jurisdiction to try the offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988? 2. Whether the delay in the trial violated the accused's right to speedy trial? 3. Whether the principle of double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India was applicable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Special Court had jurisdiction to try the offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as the appointment of Special Judges under the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949, was validated by the West Bengal Amendment Act of 1994. 2. The delay in the trial was not attributable to the accused, and the right to speedy trial did not mean that the accused could not be tried at all. 3. The principle of double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India was not applicable as the accused had not been tried by a competent court in the previous proceedings.
Final Decision: The revisional application was allowed, and the impugned order of discharge was set aside. The trial court was directed to proceed with the hearing of the case from the stage of framing of charge and to dispose of the same within six months.
( 1 ) THE hearing stems from an application under section 401 read with section 482 Cr. PC filed by the petitioner praying for revision of the order dated 13. 08. 2002 passed by the learned Judge, Second special Court, Calcutta in Special Case No. 08/95 discharging the O. P from the case.
( 2 ) THE circumstances leading to the above application are that on receipt of source information that the O. P. , Senior Manager of Canara Bank, rabindra Sarani Branch, Kolkata entered into a criminal conspiracy with some unknown persons and had sanctioned a loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- against one Kamdhenu Deposit Receipt (KDR No. 372/87) preparing forged documents without the knowledge of the depositor and cheated the said bank to the tune of the said amount, that one Sukanta Sarkar purchased the KDR bearing No. 372/87 dated 28. 11. 87 for Rs. 5,00,000/- from Rabindra sarani Branch of Canara Bank by depositing the abovementioned amount through a draft purchased from United Industrial Bank, Gariahat Branch, kolkata and the O. P. authenticated the signature of Sukanta Sarkar on his kdr application and replaced the original application with another application bearing forged signature of Sukanta Sarkar, and unauthorisedly sanctioned a loan of Rs. 1,80,000/- vide VSL (Loan against Valuable Security) bearing no. 40/88 dated 03. 08. 88 against the aforesaid KDR and thereafter on 13. 10. 88 sanctioned another additional amount of Rs. 20,000/- against the said VSL without the knowledge of the depositor, and against the said loan of Rs. 1,80,000/- a payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- was made to one Subhas Chandra dutta through Pay Order No. 820/88 and the balance amount of Rs. 30,000/-was paid by the O. P. through Pay order No. 821/88 in favour of Calcutta loan and Housing Development Corporation towards part payment of a flat booked by him at Salimpur, the additional amount of Rs. 20,000/- was paid to one Nemai Chandra Dutta vide Pay Order No. 1103/88 and after maturity of the said KDR on 28. 11. 88 an amount of Rs. 3,39,839. 25 was paid to the depositor Sukanta Sarkar through Pay Order No. 1227/88 dated 28. 11. 88 after adjusting the VSL liability and the O. P. in connivance with others fraudulently and dishonestly by abusing his official position withdrew Rs. 2,00,000/- as VSL in the names of third parties against the aforesaid KDR by forging the Bank records and thereby cheated the Bank causing pecuniary loss to the Bank to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- and corresponding gain to themselves, R. C. 24 (A)/1989-Cal under section 120b/420/467/468/471 IPC/ 13 (1) (d) read with section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered on 16. 05. 89 against the O. P. Joydeb Dasgupta and other unknown persons, and after completion of investigation chargesheet was submitted on 13. 09. 90 whereupon cognizance was taken by the learned Court below, process was issued and charge was framed against the accused on 29. 02. 92.
( 3 ) THE revisional application filed by the 0. P. before this Court for quashing the proceeding was disposed of on 04. 05. 94 with a direction to the learned Court below to dispose of the case. The O. P. then filed an application in the learned Court below on 12. 08. 94 for his discharge on the ground of the order of taking cognizance being void and invalid in view of the decision of this Court in the case of H. D. Barman vs. State, and the learned Court allowed the prayer, dropped the proceeding and discharged the accused on 26. 09. 94. On 21. 12. 95 police report, similar to that of the earlier report, was submitted whereupon the learned Court below took cognizance on 22. 12. 95 and and issued process. On 11. 02. 98, the 0. P. filed an application for discharge on the ground of non-maintainability of the case which was dismissed on 24. 03. 98. At the time of framing charge on 13. 08. 2002, the learned Court below pronounced an order of discharge of me O. P. on threefold grounds viz. (1) speedy justice is
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
