Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Joymalya Bagchi, J.
A. Bhaskaran @ Arunacholam Bhaskaran - Petitioner
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. - Respondents
C.R.R. 2688 of 2013
Decided On : 02-12-2013
For the Petitioner:Krishnendu Bhattacharyya, Advocate
For the CBI :Himangshu De and Mrityunijoy Chatterjee, Advocates
A criminal proceeding cannot be quashed merely on the ground of delay when the prosecution was not negligent or casual and the accused persons were majorly responsible for the delay.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL REVISION - Quashing of Proceedings - Delay - Parity - Legality of Settlement - Maintainability of Criminal Proceedings - Interpretation of Sections 120B, 420, 468 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5(i)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - Held, the proceeding against the petitioner cannot be quashed on the ground of parity as the proceeding against the co-accused was quashed due to a settlement between the bank and the co-accused. The petitioner, as an employee of the bank, abused his position and falsified accounts, which cannot be compared to the co-accused who was not an employee of the bank. Further, the delay in the proceeding was not solely attributable to the prosecution but also due to the abscondence of co-accused persons and the petitioner's repeated applications for discharge. The proceeding cannot be quashed on the ground of delay.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank, was charged with conspiracy, cheating, forgery, and other offenses related to a large-scale fraud involving fictitious accounts and unauthorized transactions. The proceeding against the co-accused, who controlled the fictitious firms, was quashed on the ground that the bank had resolved the dispute with him in a civil forum. The petitioner sought to quash the proceeding against him on the ground of parity, inordinate delay, and illegible copies of documents supplied by the prosecution.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the proceeding against the petitioner could not be quashed on the ground of parity as the co-accused was not an employee of the bank and the allegations against the petitioner were more serious. The court also held that the delay in the proceeding was not solely attributable to the prosecution but also due to the abscondence of co-accused persons and the petitioner's repeated applications for discharge. The court further directed the trial court to supply legible copies of documents to the petitioner, if necessary, and to conduct the proceeding on a day-to-day basis.
Issues: 1. Whether the proceeding against the petitioner can be quashed on the ground of parity with the co-accused whose proceeding was quashed due to a settlement between the bank and the co-accused. 2. Whether the proceeding can be quashed on the ground of inordinate delay. 3. Whether the copies of documents supplied by the prosecution under section 207 Cr.P.C. are illegible.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the proceeding against the petitioner could not be quashed on the ground of parity as the co-accused was not an employee of the bank and the allegations against the petitioner were more serious. 2. The court held that the delay in the proceeding was not solely attributable to the prosecution but also due to the abscondence of co-accused persons and the petitioner's repeated applications for discharge. 3. The court directed the trial court to supply legible copies of documents to the petitioner, if necessary, and to conduct the proceeding on a day-to-day basis.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revisional application filed by the petitioner.
Joymalya Bagchi, J.
Order dated 27.06.2013 passed by learned 14th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta Proceeding in G.R. Case No. 1665/95 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th court, Calcutta arising out of R.C. Case No. 12/EOW/86 under sections 120B, 420, 468 of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 5(i)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 refusing to discharge the petitioner from the aforesaid case has been assailed.
2. The prosecution case, as alleged, is that a criminal conspiracy was hatched between one Pawan Kumar Ruia, and his associates on one hand and one Charles Solomon, the then Calcutta Branch Manager of Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., the petitioner and others on the other hand to the effect that from January 1985 to September 1985 the then Calcutta Branch Manager of Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd. on the other hand and pursuant thereto the latter misused his official position and committed fraud in a pre-planned manner and cheated the bank and wrongfully issued unauthorized overdrafts to the tune of Rs. 3,19,41,727/-, extended unauthorized credit through clearing cheques of outstanding account to the tune of Rs. 422.80 lakhs, permitted illegal drawings against clearing to the tune of Rs. 62,60,471/- and made illegal book transfers to the tune of Rs. 12,35,07,000/-, and thereby enabled accused Pawan Kumar Ruia to illegally float 94 public limited companies and falsely showed that the Bank had collected a sum of Rs. 15 against each company in such public issue of equity and also failed to collect commission charges as Banker to such issue causing wrongful loss to the tune of Rs. 24,18,470,000/- and wrongful gain to the group of companies controlled by one Pawan Kumar Ruia. It is further alleged that the petitioner, as the supervisor in the branch, played a key role in the conspiracy and wrote vouchers and other documents relating to the accounts maintained in respect of the aforesaid fictitious forms created by Pawan Kumar Ruia and also helped in passing of instruments unauthorizedly enabling illegal transfer of funds for the purpose of conspiracy.
3. In conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed on 10.07.1995 under sections 120B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and six other accused persons.
4. Proceeding against Pawan Kumar Ruia was quashed by this Court primarily on the premise that the controversy had been amicably resolved by and between the bank and various companies. Such order was affirmed by the Apex Court in its judgment and order dated 15.07.1998.
5. Prayer for discharge was made by the petitioner claiming parity with Pawan Kumar Ruia, as aforesaid. However, such prayer was turned down by the trial court on 31.07.2010 and was affirmed by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 234 of 2010. Again the trial Court turned down the same prayer on 22.03.2012. Similar prayer for discharge was again preferred and turned down by the trial Court on 27.06.2013 which is challenged in this proceeding. In course of this proceeding, supplementary affidavit has been filed and additional prayer has been made to quash the proceeding on the ground of inordinate delay.
6. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the proceeding was quashed so far as it is related to the principal accused, Pawan Kumar Ruia as the bank had amicably resolved the dispute. Accordingly, he prayed that the impugned proceeding may also be quashed against the petitioner on parity. He further submitted that the matter is pending for more than two decades and in view of the fact that the dispute has been amicably resolved and the proceeding having been quashed in respect of the co-accused, continuation of the same against the petitioner would be an abuse of the process of Court and the same ought to be quashed in view of his fundamental right for speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He relied upon Pan
