Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ANANYA BANDYOPADHYAY, J.
Central Bureau of Investigation - Appellant
Vs.
Samir Kumar Biswas - Respondent
C.R.R. 2847 of 2014
Decided On : 22-05-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural context and factual history of the corruption case and locker seizure. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 2. parties' contentions regarding the scope of investigation after charge-sheet filing. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 42 , 43) |
| 3. analysis of the statutory authority under section 173(8) crpc for further investigation. (Para 38 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74) |
| 4. summary of legal standards for further investigation and freezing powers under crpc. (Para 68) |
| 5. modification of the impugned order to balance investigative needs with property rights. (Para 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82) |
Judgment :
Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.
1. The revisional application has been instituted by the petitioner assailing the order dated 21st August, 2014 passed by the Learned Special Judge, Calcutta, 3rd Special Court (C.B.I. Court) in Special Case No.03 of 2014 arising out of C.B.I./S.P.E./A.C.B./Kolkata Case No.RC0102013A0022 dated 16th July, 2013 registered under Sections 120B, 466 and 511 read with Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code together with Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, whereby the Learned Trial Court allowed the prayer of accused Samir Kumar Biswas for de-freezing Locker No.68 maintained jointly with his wife at Allahabad Bank, Durganagar Branch, Kolkata, along with the savings bank account standing in his name.
2. The petitioner has projected that the prosecution originated from a written complaint lodged on 16th July, 2013 by Shri Piyush Saraf, Director of M/s Pushpak Freight Solutions Pvt. Ltd., alleging that the accused Samir Kumar Biswas, while serving as Superintendent of Customs (Preventive & Investigation), Kolkata, had demanded illegal gratification of Rs.3,00,000/- for shielding the complainant and his company from adverse implication in a matter concerning seizure of banned drugs. Acting upon such complaint, the C.B.I., Anti Corruption Branch, Kolkata, registered the aforesaid case and arranged a trap operation on the selfsame date.
3. According to the petitioner, the trap culminated in the apprehension of the accused along with co-accused Barun Raj and Amul Vivek Linda, both Inspectors of Customs (Preventive & Investigation), Kolkata, while engaging in the process of demand and acceptance of the tainted amount. The prosecution version further records that co-accused Barun Raj had received the bribe amount on the instructions of accused Samir Kumar Biswas and thereafter attempts were made to conceal the incriminating materials connected with the transaction. Investigation also disclosed the participation of another Customs Inspector, Vivek Anjum Toppo, in the alleged conspiracy and in the subsequent effort to suppress evidence pertaining to the offence. The tainted money together with other incriminating articles was seized in the presence of independent witnesses.
4. The petitioner has asserted that investigation yielded substantial materials revealing the complicity of all the accused persons in a concerted design involving demand and acceptance of illegal gratification coupled with measures intended to obliterate traces of the offence. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet dated 30th December, 2013 came to be filed against the accused persons under Sections 120B and 466 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 511 read with Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code in relation to the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Learned Special Judge thereafter took cognizance of the offences and the criminal proceeding remained pending for trial.
5. The petitioner has laid considerable emphas
AI
(1) Further investigation – Mere fact that there may be further delay in concluding trial should not stand in way of further investigation if that would help court in arriving at truth and do real an....
The accused has no right to seek further investigation after a charge sheet is filed, and discrepancies in evidence are to be resolved at trial.
The investigating officer is not legally required to seek court permission before conducting further investigation under S.173(8) of the Code.
It is not mandatory for the investigating officer to seek and obtain permission of the court for conducting further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code, but it is desirable as a matter of ....
The investigation agency has the statutory right to conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure without seeking permission from the Magistrate.
The court emphasized that further investigation must be justified by new evidence or deficiencies in the prior investigation, and the discretion to order it lies with the Magistrate based on case fac....
Further investigation – Whether further investigation should or should not be ordered is within discretion of Magistrate who will exercise such discretion on facts of each case and in accordance with....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
