RONGON NEOGI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner made a complaint in writing to the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Branch against two officers attached to the S.I.V. Wings, Commissionerate of Service Tax Department, Government of India alleging commission of offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, whereupon the R.C. Case No. 20 of 2008 was registered and C.B.I. took up the investigation. The said case gave rise to Special Case No. 1 of 2009. During the investigation of the case C.B.I. arrested both the accused persons and they were produced before the Learned Judge, 1st Special Court, Alipore, South 24-Parganas. On 26th of May, 2008 on behalf of the said accused persons a prayer for bail was made before the Learned Judge, 1st Special Court, Alipore, South 24-Parganas. While disposing of the said bail application the Learned Judge in his order observed as follows; Thus, this Court is convinced at least prima facie that this defactocomplainant has evaded service tax, income tax and sales tax which will penalty and interest both for the Central and State Government. Hence, sent the relevant portion of this order to the Commissioner of Income Tax, Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and the Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax S.I.V. Wings, Calcutta by Fax/special messenger for necessary action as the concerned authority may deem fit and proper. The petitioner invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure now moved this Court for expunging of such observations.

(2.) Heard Mr. Arup Ratan Chatterjee, appearing with Mr. Malay Dhar for the petitioner as well as Mr. Ranjan Roy for the C.B.I.

(3.) In the case of The State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Mohammad Naim, reported in (1964) 2 SCR 363, a four Judges Bench of Honble Supreme Court laid down the test to be followed in considering the expansion of disparaging remarks against a person or authority made by a Court of law in course of a judicial pronouncement and held as follows; It has been judicially recognized that in the matter of making disparaging remarks against persons or authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before courts of law in cases to be decided by them, it is relevant to consider,