SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Cal) 582

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, J.
West Bengal State Agricultural Marketing Board – Petitioner 
Versus 
The State of West Bengal and Anr. – Opp. Parties
C.R.R. 718 of 2018 With CRAN 1 of 2018 (Old CRAN 1222 of 2018)
Decided On : 13-08-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ms. Sutapa Sanyal, Adv., Mr. Debrup Bhattacharjee, Adv., Mr. Pradeep Kr. Tulsyan, Adv., Mr. Tirthankar Dey, Adv.
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Ld. Sr. Adv., Mr. Anirban Dutta, Adv., Ms. Sharmistha Ghosh, Adv., Mr. Victor Chatterjee, Adv., Mr. Amit Ghosh, Adv., Mr. Ranit Ray, Adv.

The law of limitation applies equally to all parties, including State entities, and delays cannot be condoned unless supported by sufficient and clear explanations.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 401 and 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13(1)(c)(d) - Delay of 1463 days in filing Revisional application - Petitioner failed to provide sufficient explanation for delay - Application for condonation of delay rejected as the reasons were vague and unsatisfactory, citing public interest does not justify unnecessary delay. (Paras 21, 24, 29, 30)

(B) Condonation of Delay - Principles established - The law of limitation applies equally to all, including Government entities - Delays cannot be condoned on lax grounds without sufficient cause - Condonation of delay is an exception and must be approached with diligence, particularly when public interest is involved. (Paras 17, 18, 29)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to condone a delay of 1463 days in filing a Revisional application against an order allowing withdrawal of funds belonging to it. The delay was attributed to bureaucratic processes, file movements, and misplaced records.

Findings of Court:
The evidence presented did not establish a sufficient cause for the delay, leading to the dismissal of the application.

Issues: The court examined if there was sufficient cause for the prolonged delay and whether it could be justified given the involvement of governmental parties.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that public interest must not be used as a pretext for excessive delay; procedural rigors must be observed even by state entities.

Result: Application for condonation of delay dismissed, and the revisional application rejected.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.

CRAN 1 of 2018 (Old CRAN 1222 of 2018)

1. This instant application is for condonation of delay of 1463 days in preferring the Revisional application filed by the petitioner under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, ‘CrPC’) challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned Order dated 09.04.2014 passed by the Learned Judge, 4th Special Court, Calcutta in Case No. 01 of 2013 arising out of Hare Street P.S. Case No. 172 dated 13.03.2013 under Sections 120B/420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 13(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, pending before the Learned 4th Special Court, Bankshall Court, Calcutta for adjudication.

2. By the said impugned order, the Learned Trial Court allowed the opposite party no. 2, another Government establishment, namely, West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation Limited, to withdraw the amount from the freezed account of the petitioner.

3. The brief facts of the case as per the petitioner are that the petitioner is a body corporate. The State Government, in exercise of its power conferred under the provisions of Section 36 of the West Bengal Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1972, as amended thereto, constituted and established the petitioner board by way of notification published in the Official Gazette. In view of The West Bengal Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) (Amendment) Act, 2014, the name of the West Bengal State Marketing Board has been renamed as West Bengal State Agricultural Marketing Board, the petitioner herein.

4. The petitioner herein receives market fees from various Market Committees and such amounts collected are deposited in the West Bengal State Marketing Board Fund. The Board also invests the money in short term deposit scheme to earn interest on the idle amount.

5. Sometime in the month of November 2013, the debit transaction in respect of the account of the petitioner with the Allahabad Bank, Ultadanga Branch was frozen. Upon enquiry, it was informed to the petitioner that pursuant to the notice under Section 102 of the CrPC, issued by the Officer-in-Charge, Bank Fraud Section Detective Department, Lal Bazar in connection with Hare Street P.S. Case No. 172 dated 13.03.2013 under Sections 120B/420/467 /468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 13(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, bank account was frozen.

6. The matter was placed before the higher authorities of the petitioner for its decision. However, in the month of June 12, 2014 it appears that a sum of Rs. 15,66,06,608/- has been withdrawn from the bank account of the petitioner and upon enquiry, it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that by the impugned order dated 09.04.2014 passed by the Learned 4th Special Court, Calcutta, the opposite party no. 2, another Government establishment, namely, West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation Limited was permitted to withdraw the said amount from the account of the petitioner though, entire money belongs to the petitioner.

7. Ms. Sanyal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that pursuant to the impugned order passed by the Learned Special Court, the amount of the petitioner was withdrawn by the opposite party no. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the petitioner filed this Revisional application praying for setting aside the impugned order with a further direction upon the opposite party no. 2 to return or to deposit the said amount of Rs. 15,66,06,608/- to an interest-bearing account and/or restrained them from utilisation said amount until disposal of the Revisional application.

8. Learned counsel further submitted that the delay of 1463 days in filing of application was unintentional. Delay occurred due to internal movement of files in different departments to take decision on the issue of filing appro

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top