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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 11434

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
WEST BENGAL STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL amp ANR – Respondent
CRR 718 / 2018



IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION Appellate Side Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta C.R.R. 718 of 2018 With CRAN 1 of 2018 (Old CRAN 1222 of 2018)

West Bengal State Agricultural Marketing Board Versus The State of West Bengal and Anr.

For the Petitioner : Ms. Sutapa Sanyal, Adv.

Mr. Debrup Bhattacharjee, Adv.

Mr. Pradeep Kr. Tulsyan, Adv.

Mr. Tirthankar Dey, Adv.

For the Opposite Party No. 2 : 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.

Heard on : 01.08.2025 Judgment on : 13.08.2025 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 a

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