The court emphasized that the charge against an accused must be sufficient to prove guilt, and mere participation in financial matters with a spouse does not establish abetment.

JUDGMENT

Subhendu Samanta, J. - This is an application U/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the petitioner for quashing of a proceeding of special case no. 3 of 2013 now pending before Learned 3d Special Court Calcutta and against an order dated 12.10.2017 passed by the said Special Judge, rejecting the application of the petitioner praying for discharge.

2. The brief fact of the case is that the opposite party Central Bureau of Investigation registered a FIR being No. RC 0102012A0006 on 24th February 2012 on the basis of letter of complaint lodged by one Inspector of CBI /ACB/Calcutta alleging inter alia that the petitioner No. 1 has amassed huge assets in his name and in the name of his family members during the check period from 01.01.2012 to 27.01.2012 which was disproportionate to his known source of income.

3. CBI conducted investigation and after investigation charge sheet has been submitted against both the petitioners alleging accused No. 1 for commission of offence U/s 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and against accused No. 2, U/s 109 IPC read with section 13(2)read with 13(1) (c) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.

4. The petitioners thereafter filed an application before the Special Judge, U/s 239 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge. The prayer of the petitioner was turned down. Hence this revision.

5. During the course of argument before this court I find no merit in the prayer of the petitioner No. 1 thus, there is no illegality in the impugned order in respect of petitioner No. 1 Sushanta Das Gupta.

6. Argument was advanced for discharge in respect of petitioner No. 2 Smt. Soma Das Gupta wife of petitioner No. 1 Sushanta Das Gupta.

7. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted before this court that the petitioner No. 2 is the wife of the petitioner No. 1 and she is the house wife. She had no role to play in the instant alleged offence committed by the petitioner No. 1. The allegation that her name appears along with her husband in a number of saving scheme certificate cannot be the reason for bringing her as an accused in this case. During the course of investigation she stated before the I.O. that she had no knowledge regarding the financial transactions. She is simple home maker and she is not at all conversant any financial dealings of her husband. Learned Advocate for the petitioner further argued that it is the only course of affairs while a husband request his wife to be part with any financial account jointly, the wife having no other source of income easily agreed to such proposal. The allegation of the prosecution regarding the active participation of the petitioner No. 2 in the alleged commission of offence is not proper and illegal in the eye of law. She never abated her husband in any alleged commission of offence. Thus, the allegation labelled against her by the CBI is baseless and she is liable to be discharged.

8. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the CBI raised strong objection and submitted before this court that the petitioner has amassed huge assets during the check period. During the course of investigation assets standing in the name of the accused No. 1 (A-1)was calculated and it appears at the end of check period the A-1 being the public servant accumulated huge assets which is disproportionate to his known source of income. During the course of investigation huge bank account were seized, movable and immovable properties acquired during the check period were calculated, jewellery purchasing during that period were also measured, huge amount of Kishan Vikash Patra (KVP) and other NSC, certificates with the several branch of post offices during the said period being not less than 223 in numbers were also calculated.

9. From the bank accounts it appears that all the bank accounts are standing in the name of A-1 and A-2. The KVP or other certificates also standing in the name of A-1 and A2 jointly and also A-1 with her son Debanjan Das Gupta jointly. After