ARNAB CHAKRABORTY Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA; DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA; INVESTIGATING OFFICER OF WEST AGARTALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole question which falls for consideration in this criminal petition is whether the charges in the three FIRs lodged against the petitioner in connection with Wets Agartala P.S. Case No. 156/14 U/s 403/468/471/409 IPC, West Agartala P.S. Case no. 2015/WAG/060 U/s 120-B/409/468/471/477A/420 IPC & Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(C) & (d) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and West Agartala PS Case No. 2015 WAG066 U/s 109/120-B IPC and 13(2)/13(1)(e) P.C. Act, 1988 can be charged with and tried together before the same Court under Section 220, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(2.) The first FIR pertains to withdrawal by the petitioner of a sum of Rs. 11,72,000/- by the petitioner (Arnab Chakraborty), LDC (Cashier, RMSA Wing, Directorate of School Education from Tripura State Cooperative Bank on 3-9-2014 by forging the signatures ASMD and the Deputy Director (DDO) with a view to misappropriate public money, which was registered as West Agartala PS Case No. 156/14 U/s 403/468/471/477-A/409 IPC now pending before the learned Special Judge, Court No. 3, West Tripura PC Act as Special Case No. 3/2014. The second FIR relates to unauthorized withdrawal by the petitioner of approximately Rs. 3,19 crores from the same Bank on different dates between 24-1-2014 and 2-9-2014 by 93 cheques by forging the documents of the Bank, which was registered as West Agartala PS Case No. 60/2015 U/s 120-B/409/468/471/477-A/420 IPC & Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of PCT Act now pending before the learned Special Judge, Court No. 3, West Tripura as Special Case no. 4/15. The third case is West Agartala PS Case no. 66/2015 U/s 109/120-B IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(i)(e) of P.C. Act, 1988 pending before the learned Special Judge, Court No. 3, West Tripura. The petitioner in this case is charged with possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.

(3.) The contention of Mr. P.K. Biswas, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, is that the allegations made against the petitioners are closely connected with each other, which were allegedly disclosed in the course of investigation of West Agartala PS Case No.156/14, and are based on the same set of documents, which were seized in connection with the same FIR and, as such, separate trial will be highly inconvenient and prejudicial to the petitioner. He also submits that this is a case where the offences in the three FIRs were committed by one person in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction and, as such, the petitioner should be charged with and tried at one trial for every such offence. Alternatively, he maintains that the offences were committed in one series of act so connected with the same transaction or the offences alleged against the petitioner are offences of the same kind committed which were committed in the space of 12 months from the first to the last offence, the petitioner along with the other accused should be charged with and tried and tried jointly under Section 220 CrPC. He, therefore, strenuously urges this Court to direct the trial court under Section 220 CrPC to charge and try the petitioner at one trial for every such offence. Mr. A. Ghosh, the learned Public Prosecutor, however, opposes such composite trial and submits that it is purely at the discretion of the trial court to charge with and try the petitioner at one trial for every such offence. He, therefore, contends that the criminal petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.