IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak

And

The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi

MAT 69 of 2024

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Vs.

Sri Subrata Dutta & Ors.

For the appellants :Mr. Sourav Ganguly, Advocate

Ms. Bedashruti Bose, Advocate Mr. Anirban Banerjee, Advocate

For the Respondents/: Mr. Subham Ghosh, Advocate

Writ petitioners Mr. Mayank Roy, Advocate

Heard & Judgment on: November 24, 2025

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-

1. Appeal is at the behest of the State and its functionaries and directed

against the judgment and order dated May 22, 2024 passed in WPA 253

of 2021.

2. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that, the

impugned judgment and order notices (2024) 7 Supreme Court Cases

23 (Shento Varghese vs. Julfikar Husen and Others). However, learned Single Judge misapplied the ratio of such decision.

3. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that, five bank accounts (one current bank account and four savings bank accounts) of the private respondent were seized by the Investigating Officer. It is alleged as against the appellants that, report under Section 102(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, was filed belatedly and, therefore, the seizure of the accounts should be lifted. He submits that, in view of the ratio of Shento Varghese (supra), the delay in reporting such seizure to the jurisdictional Court would not vitiate the seizure itself. Such delay if remains unexplained may at best reflect upon the conduct of the Investigating Officer and at the highest disciplinary proceedings may be initiated.

4. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the police case was investigated into by seven different Investigating Officers. Of the seven Investigating Officers, five superannuated. One Investigating Officer prior to the last one who actually filed the report under Section 102(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code is yet to superannuate. Therefore, a departmental proceeding can at best be initiated against only one Investigating Officer. He points out that, such Investigating Officer was in charge of the police case for a limited point of time.

5. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that, it was due to sheer oversight that a report under Section 102(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code was not filed before the jurisdictional Court, till its actual filing. As and when such lacuna was discovered by the last Investigating Officer, such report was immediately filed before the jurisdictional Court.

6. Learned Advocate appearing for the private respondent submits that, the delay in filing the report under Section 102(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code is established. He submits that, there were a number of Investigating Officers. The report was submitted before the jurisdictional Court only after a writ petition to such effect was filed before the High Court. According to him, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the impugned judgment should not be interfered with.

7. As noted above, police in course of investigation with regard to a First Information Report being Pradhan Nagar Police Station FIR No.457 of 2013 under Sections 120B/409/467/468/471/477A/420 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2)/13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, seized five accounts belonging to the private respondent and directed them to remain frozen.

8. Subsequent to such accounts being seized and directed to be frozen, report under Section 102(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code was filed only on January 5, 2022. Accounts were frozen on August 12, 2013 and September 16, 2013.

9. Private respondent assailed the notices directing freeze of the five accounts dated August 12, 2013 and September 16, 2013 by way of a writ petition filed in 2021. Private respondent also did not take any steps with regard to freeze on such accounts for a period o