JUDGMENT :

Rai Chattopadhyay, J.

A) Order under challenge:-

1. Impugned in this revision is the order dated 19.10.2015, of the Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah in G.R Case No.1706 of 2010, under Section 120B, 420, 468, 471 of the IPC. Connected FIR is CBI/ACB/Kolkata 2009 RC0102009A0010 dated 13.03.2009, under the aforestated provisions of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Section 3 (1) (b) read with Section 3 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Charge sheet was submitted on 15.06.2010.

2. The three petitioners of this case, filed an application before the Magistrate, under Section 239 of Cr.P.C, 1973 to pray for discharge from the case. The impugned order was to reject their prayer as above. The Magistrate recorded his findings regarding prima facie case against the present petitioners/accused persons to have already been brought on record, which would require a trial to be held, for proving the allegations against them. Thus, rejected petitioner’s prayer for discharge.

B) How the parties are represented in this revision

3. Mr. Naba Kumar Das appeared for the petitioners on several dates and argued on their behalf. Last date of appearance of Mr. Das for the petitioners, was 22.12.2022. Since thereafter, the petitioners have not been represented, though the matter was called on for sufficient number of times.

4. Before Mr. Mitra, representing CBI, could open his arguments, Court had, therefore, sent administrative notice, to the petitioners, taking note of prolonged absence of the Ld. Advocate, representing the petitioners. Such service is, however, not complete, as the petitioners were not found present or available at the address, disclosed in this case. Messenger’s report as above is a part of this record.

5. The Court is constrained to note that the present is an old case, pending since 2016. Before that, prosecution was started in the year 2009. The time span already elapsed in this case is a matter of concern and the same should not be ignored, only in view of non availability of the petitioners, either in person or through their counsel, more so, when arguments on behalf of the petitioners have substantially been concluded. Hence, Mr. Mitra was allowed to place his case, for CBI, in absence of the petitioners or their Ld. Advocate. He completes his arguments duly.

C) Petitioner’s Case.

6. Petitioners No. 1 & 2 are the Directors of ‘Celebrity Management Group (Pvt.) Ltd’ and petitioner no.3 is the Manager (Production) the said company.

7. ‘Celebrity Management’ and the petitioners were involved in this case, as a part of the consortium of companies, formed for conducting event management of 33rd National Games 2007, held at Guwahati, Assam, from February 09, 2007 to February 18, 2007. It is worth noting that ‘M/s. Ruby Enterprise’, initially entered into a “sponsorship agreement”, with the ‘Event and Games Sponsorship Committee’, on 12.12.2006, to be the sole official sponsorship agency for 33rd National Games, 2007. ‘Ruby’, thereafter formed the consortium with ‘Celebrity Management’ and the other company, namely, ‘M/s. Outdoor’.

8. Allegations, in a nut shell, against the petitioners have been of illegally and unauthorisedly withholding and retaining the amount of Rs. 1 Crore, sponsored by DVC, towards bronze medal expenses, for the 33rd National Games. According to the petitioners, the allegation as above, is only baseless, in so far as, vide cheque dated 03.02.2009, issued in favour of DVC, of an amount of Rs. 1 Crore, that is, the entire sponsorship money paid by DVC, has been duly returned. The petitioners have not missed to mention that the said amount has been duly credited to DVC.

9. Petitioners have also made it a point that the case is civil in nature and no element of any culpability is involved in the same. To elaborate this, the petitioners have taken up instance that DVC has filed a suit for recovery of interest amount, in a civil Court.

10. Be that as it may, in the present case, before the