STATE OF TRIPURA Vs. BIMAL CHAKRABORTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State by means of this revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. has challenged the order dated 16.01.2015 delivered in Special Case No.01 of 2015 by the Special Judge [the Session Judge], West Tripura, Agartala, but the challenge is restricted to refusal to take cognizance of the police report filed under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. in connection with Bishalgarh P.S. Case No.135/2014 under Section 409/468/471 read with Section 34 of the IPC and under Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120-B of the IPC. The reasons assigned for such refusal are as follows :

(2.) Mr. B. Chowdhury, learned PP appearing for the State has submitted that the reasons so assigned by the Special Judge are grossly erroneous and completely unsustainable. Merely because in the police report it has been mentioned that further investigation was continuing by the investigating officer, the said police report was not accepted by giving a pedantic interpretation of Section 173(i),(ii) of the Cr.P.C. The Special Judge for the said reason has considered the police report as partial and not filed on completion of the investigation. Hence, the police have been directed to file the complete police report within the stipulated period for taking cognizance by the Magistrate. Mr. Chowdhury, learned PP has submitted that the police report as filed in the court of the Special Judge was in respect of a "complete transaction". Mr. Chowdhury, learned PP has further submitted that it was the duty incumbent upon the Special Judge to consider the charge-sheet [the police report] and to come to an inference whether any offence has been disclosed. Mr. Chowdhury, learned PP has continued to submit that on completion of the investigation for the said transaction, the police report was submitted. From the said police report, it transpires that the accused persons in order to commit misappropriation of fund and pecuniary gain had hatched a criminal conspiracy. There are materials to be primafacie satisfied that a sum of Rs.1,04,88,946/- against fifteen work orders with the estimated cost of Rs.01,11,225/- [that included money in respect of material cost and wages] was defalcated. Further investigation as indicated is in respect of other transactions where similar offences have been committed by the accused persons. Some examples have been given by Mr. Chowdhury, learned PP from the police report, which is the part of the record. He has finally contended that the separate FIRs are not necessary for filing the separate police report against the distinct separate transaction which may come to the notice of the investigating officer while investigating one transaction. For filing separate police reports, no prejudice would be caused to the accused.

(3.) To buttress this contention, Mr. Chowdhury, learned PP has referred to the provisions of Section 218 of the Cr.P.C. which provides that for distinct offence for which any person is accused there shall be separate charge and every such charge shall be tried separately. However, having approached by the accused and looking at the aspect that nobody will be prejudiced, if the charges are tried together, he may direct a joint trial.