The DSPE officer posted in Bihar was competent to investigate the offence committed in West Bengal as the Government of West Bengal had consented to the exercise of such powers under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946.

On August 30, 1975 Sri C.K. Tewari, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Delai Special Police Establishment, Ranchi Brach, registered a case under S. 120B read with S. 420 of the Indian Penal Code and 5(2) and 5(i)(d) of the Prervention of Corruption Act, 1947 for investigation against (i) Sri M. Dasgupta, Senior Purchase Officer, Durgapur Steel Piant (for brevity DSP) (ii) M/s. S.N. Sunderson (Minerals) Pvt. Ltd., of 1/A, Vansitrat Row, Calcutta, (hereinafter referred to as the Company) and (iii) other concerned officers of DSP. In his complaint Sri Tweari alleged that Sri M. Dasgupta and other officers of DSP entered into a conspiracy with tea Company and in pursuance of the said conspiracy for the supply of 1,21,000 Metric Tonnes of Line Stone vide purchase order dated 9.10.74 at a rate much higher than the preventing market rate causing thereby a huge monetory loss to the DSP and a corresponding wrongful gtain to themselves or to the Company. It was further alleged that Sri M. Dasgupta, who was earlier a Senior Execute of the Company, in collation with the Company and other officers of Durgapur Steel plant awarded/caused to be awarded various other contracts during the years 1972-74 to the Company at a much higher rate than the prevailing rate and caused wrongful gain to the company or to themselves and corresponding loss to DSP. On commission of offence under S. 120B read with S. 420 of the Indian Penal Code by Sri A.K. Sarkar, Sri S.N. Beri and Sri T.K. Chowdhury, the General Manager, Managing Director and the Controller of Finance respectively of the Company. The cases constituting the offence as stated in the said police report are as follows : -

2. The Company was placed with an order by DSP for supply of 15,000 Metric Tonnes of Lime Stone vide purchase order No. PUR/OP/139(333)C dated 10.9.73 and 1,21,000 Mectic Tonnes of Lime Stone vide purchase order No. PUR/OP/139/355-A dated 9.10.74. As per the purchase orders the Company was entitled to siding charges as levied by the Railways. Investigation revealed that the Company dispatched Lime stone from Junkehi, Niwar and Mihar, Central Railways to DSP in between 1973 to 1975 and paid only Rs. 520.20p. towards siding charges to the Railways for their dispatches from Niwar (Rs. 66-70 p.) while the accused persons dishonestly claimed and obtained Rs. 8.890/- as siding charges. It was further revealed that while the Company was not required to pay and in fact did not pay any amount to the Railways on account of siding charges for its dispatches from Mathar Railway Station, they dishonestly charged and received Rs. 15,240/-. As regards dispatches by the Company from Jhukehi (Central Railways) the Company paid only Rs. 56,132/- to the Railways as siding charges while the accused persons dishonestly charged and obtained Rs. 76.722/-.

3. According to the police report the above facts disclosed that the three accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy and in pursuance of the said conspiracy dishonestly and fraudulently obtained a sum of Rs. 442000/- so wards siding charges to which they were not entitled to and thereby cheated DSP to the extent of the aforesaid amount.

4. The Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate. Durgapur took cognizance upon the said police report and issued warrant of assets against the three accused persons. After the accused persons surrendered before the learned Magistrate and copies of documents referred to under S. 173 of the Cede of Criminal Procedure were furnished to them they filed applications praying for their discharge under S. 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on identical grounds the learned Magistrate, by his order dated 11.7.78, rejected the said applications hold and inter alia that there was prima facie case for framing charge against each of them and fixed a date for the purpose. Before however the charges could be framed, the petitioners moved this Court by filing three separate application for quashing the proceeding of th