The main legal point established is that criminal proceedings cannot continue against a deceased person, and such proceedings are contrary to the foundation of criminal jurisprudence.

JUDGMENT

Manish Choudhury, J. - Heard Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. U. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. P. Das, learned Standing counsel for the respondent CBI.

2. This criminal petition under Section 482 read with Sections 397/401, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (''the Code'' or ''the CrPC, for short), is preferred for setting aside and quashing of the criminal proceeding pertaining to CBI Special Case No. 2/2010 (C.B.I vs. Jaydev Das) against the petitioner arising out of First Information Report (FIR) no. R.C. 0172010A0002 dated 28.01.2010, which is pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, CBI, Assam, Guwahati (''the trial court'', for short), and the order dated 14.08.2013 passed by the learned trial court whereby charges were framed against the accused-petitioner under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner as the sole accused.

3. The background facts which led to the registration of the First Information Report (FIR) no. R.C. 017201040002 against the accused-petitioner can be stated, in brief, as under :

wxyz

3.1) On receipt of reliable source information, the FIR was registered on 28.01.2010 under Section 109, Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (''the PC Act'', for short) against the petitioner and his wife, Smti. Kumkum Das as accused. As per the allegations made in the said information and the FIR, the accused-petitioner while being posted and functioning as Chief Manager of Allahabad Bank, Lakhtokia Branch, Guwahati during January 2006 to 21.02.2008, by abusing his official position in the capacity of public servant and by corrupt and illegal means, had amassed huge immovable and movable properties to the tune of Rs. 17,76,881/- which were found highly disproportionate to his known sources of income and when he was interrogated, he could not explain it satisfactorily. It was further alleged that the accused-petitioner was in possession of disproportionate assets worth Rs. 29,35,403/- in his name and in the name of his wife and further, his family members had also wrongfully abetted the commission of the offences. Thus, the FIR was registered against the accused-petitioner and his wife, Smti. Kumkum Das.

zyxw

wxyz

3.2) After registration of the FIR, investigation was initiated and after completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer (I.O.) of the case had submitted a charge sheet under Section 173, CrPC on 31.12.2010 finding a prima facie case to proceed against the accusedpetitioner for commission of offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (e) of the PC Act on the basis of the materials collected during the course of investigation. The I.O. had mentioned that during the course of investigation, evidence had not come on record to prove that Smti. Kumkum Das committed the offence under Section 109, IPC and, thus, she was not charge sheeted for the said offence. On receipt of the charge sheet, the learned trial court issued summons to the accused-petitioner who, on receipt of the same, had entered appearance before the learned trial court. The copies under Section 207, CrPC were furnished to the accused-petitioner and after going through the same, it was urged on behalf of the accused-petitioner for his discharge at the stage of consideration of charge.

zyxw

wxyz

3.3) The learned trial court by the impugned order dated 14.08.2013 framed charges against the accused-petitioner for offences under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act. The charges on being read over and explained to the accusedpetitioner, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

zyxw

4. This criminal petition has been preferred thereafter with the prayers, mentioned hereinabove.

5. It is submitted by Mr. Kamar, learned Senior counsel, who used to represent the accused-petitioner, Jaydev Das that Jaydev Das had, in the