SHYAMAL MUKHERJEE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has challenged an order of framing charge under Sections 409/477A/465/420 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Mr. Rajdeep Majumdar appearing with Mr. Kushal Kumar Mukherjee for the petitioner urged for quashing of the charge on the following grounds; (a) Although in the order of framing charge the learned Judge has mentioned the charge has been framed under Sections 409/477A/465/420 of the Indian Penal Code but it appears from the formal portion of the charge that charge has only been framed under Sections 465/420 of the Indian Penal Code. (b) In the aforesaid charge, no time and place has been disclosed. Only it has been mentioned on the same day and at the same place. (c) A Special Court, constituted by West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act, is only empowered to hold trial of the offence punishable under Sections 409/477/420 of the Indian Penal Code, if it is committed by a public servant dealing with property belonging to Government as an agent of the Government but in the present case the alleged property misappropriated belonging to a Co-operative Society not to the Government. On the other hand, Mr. Sobhendu Sekhar Roy, learned advocate, appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing. At the very outset he draws the attention of this Court from the Lower Court Records that it is incorrect to say that no charge under Sections 409/477A of the Indian Penal Code has been framed and he further submitted that the date and place of occurrence do not require to be mentioned because already while framing of charge under Sections 409/477A of the Indian Penal Code, the Learned Court has mentioned the date and place.

(3.) I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions of the parties. Perused the Lower Court Records.