CBI ACB Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under section 482 read with section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner seeks to challenge the correctness of the judgment dated 16th June, 1999, passed by the Special Judge/sessions Judge, Goa, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 10 of 1999.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the respondents No. 2 to 5 have been charged with offences punishable under the Provisions of Indian Penal Code as well as Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The respondent No. 1 has filed a private complaint, being Criminal Case No. 167/p/96/a, which is pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vasco-da-Gama against the respondents No. 3 and 4 for offences punishable under sections 120, 197, 198, 199, 200, 403, 405, 415, 416, 420, 423, 463, 464, 466, 467, 468, 471, 473, 474, 475, 476, 477-A, 481, 484 and 485 of Indian Penal Code, whereas, the police complaint was filed in respect of same transaction against the respondents No. 2 to 5, which case was subsequently made over to C. B. I. and registered as R. C. No. 2 (A0/ (95)/cbi/acb/goa on 25-10-1995. The same has now been registered as Special Case No. 3 of 1997 before the Special Judge/sessions Judge, Goa, for offences punishable under sections 419, 420, 462, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code and section 13 (1) (d) read with section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with section 120-B of Indian Penal Code. There is no dispute that both the cases pending against the respondents No. 3 and 4 and 2 to 5, respectively, are arising out of the same transaction. In the circumstances, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, by order dated 14th of December, 1998 thought it appropriate to refer the case pending before him to the special Court where the aforesaid C. B. I. case was pending.

(3.) AFTER the said order, the matter was placed before the Special Judge/sessions Judge, Margao, who, in turn, issued notices to the concerned parties to satisfy whether such a course could be resorted to and the source of authority of Judicial Magistrate to issue such directions. The respective parties appeared before the Special Judge and the Special Judge, by the impugned order, has taken the view that the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, had no authority to pass directions of transferring the case pending before him to the Special Judge. Besides this, the Special Judge also took the view, referring to decisions relied upon on behalf of respondent No. 1 Bank in (Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab and others), A. I. R. 1985 S. C. 404 and (T. S. Sawhney v. The State), 1987 Cri. L. J. 1079, that both the proceedings were different and could not be clubbed before the Special Judge. In the circumstances, the Special Judge was pleased to order that the Record and Proceedings of Criminal Case No. 167/p/96/a be returned to Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vasco-da-Gama with a direction that he should proceed with the enquiry and trial in the criminal case in accordance with law.