K K KAPSE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN both these applications, the applicants seek quashing of proceedings in Case No. 60 (a)/84 which was renumbered as Case No. 17/92 after it is transferred from Bombay to Nagpur, now pending before Special Court, Nagpur. The said proceedings were filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation against, (1) Arunava Chaterjee, (2) Amitava Chaterjee, (3) Applicant K. J. Angore in Criminal Application No. 733/2001 and (4) K. K. Kapse, applicant in Criminal Application No. 2259 of 1998. The prosecution case is that National Savings Organisation, Nagpur was cheated for an amount of rupees 2. 8 lacs approximately. The charge-sheet was filed under section 120-B, 420 of I. P. C. read with section 34 of I. P. C. against all the four accused; under sections 467 and 471 of I. P. C. against accused Nos. 1 and 2 and under sections 5 (1) (d) read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 against accused Nos. 3 and 4, namely, the present applicants. The case was initially filed in the Court of Special Judge at Bombay and it was transferred to Special Judge, Nagpur in the year 1992. The charge has not been framed till to date.

(2.) LEARNED Advocate Shri Utpal Rudra argued for the applicants, learned Advocate Shri Govind Mishra argued on behalf of the C. B. I. and learned A. P. P. Shri D. B. Yengal argued on behalf of the State.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate for the applicants argued that the prime accused Amitava Chaterjee had already expired; that the F. I. R. was lodged on 11-4-1984 and till to date even charge has not been framed; that the departmental enquiry by Central Vigilance Commission was conducted against both the applicants in which applicant K. J. Angore was completely exonerated for the same charges and applicant K. K. Kapse was exonerated relating to the main charges, but charge in relation to misplacement of file was proved against him. Learned Advocate for the applicants has further pointed out that applicant K. K. Kapse had approached Central Administrative Tribunal by filing original Application No. 951 of 1995 in respect of the charge relating to missing of file and the Central Administrative Tribunal vide order dated 7th July, 1999, exonerated him of all the charges. Learned Advocate for the applicants has further submitted before me that the C. B. I. had filed a petition bearing Writ Petition No. 2881 of 1999 against the said order of Central Administrative Tribunal before this Court, but the said petition was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 3-4-2001. Learned Advocate for the applicants has further pointed out that the proceedings are pending for almost 17 years now and in the meantime the applicants have undergone considerable sufferings including denial of promotion and they have been exonerated by the Central Vigilance Commission and that the proceedings as against the applicants be quashed. He has placed reliance on (S. G. Nain v. Union of India), reported in A. I. R. 1992 S. C. 603.