MILON KUMAR GHOSH Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is pertaining to the Special case no. 2 of 2000 pending in the Court of learned Judge, 24 Parganas 1st Special Court, Alipore. It has been filed at the instance of Milon Kumar Ghosh, one of the accused in the case, and is directed against an order dated 7.7.2008 passed by the learned Judge whereby his prayer for discharge from the case was rejected. By filing a supplementary affidavit, the petitioner prayed for quashing of the proceeding against him in alternative. As short reference to the factual aspect is given for proper appreciation of the matter.

(2.) The Assistant General Manager (Vigilance), United Bank of India (O.P. No. 3) lodged one FIR with the opposite party No. 2, Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., B.S. & F.C. alleging therein that some of the officers of United Bank of India, in connivance with each other, defrauded the United Bank of India by opening false current Accounts, drawing and encashing fictitious cheques of huge amount, manufacturing forged documents and thereby caused huge loss of public exchequer in clandestine manner. The offence alleged mainly had taken place in the United Bank of India, Syed Amir Ali Avenue Branch, Calcutta. On the basis of said FIR, a case being R.C. 3(e) 97 - B.S. & F.C./DLI dated 21.4.97 was registered against the persons who were named in the FIR. The case was investigated into thoroughly by the CBI and on conclusion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against as many as seven persons including this petitioner Milon Kumar Ghosh who happened to be the then Manager of Bank of Baroda, Camac Street Branch, Calcutta. In course of investigation it was detected that he fraudulently opened one current account in the name of R.L. Mirpuri on 23.12.1995 on the basis of Banker Cheque No. 669405 dated 23.12.1995 for Rs. 42.50 lacs; issued in favour of Bank of Baroda by M/S S.R. Ramamani, the then Senior Manager of Allahabad Branch, Southern Avenue Bank, Calcutta by showing debit to a non-extend N.R.E. account No. 880931/12 dated 14.12.1995. The said account was opened at the instance of Amarendra Nath Ghosh (accused No. 6) and Mr. Mrigendra Nath Ghosh (accused No. 7) of M/S Mahon Group of companies of Calcutta. The accused Milon Kumar Ghosh did not obtain photograph of the account holder which was required as per R.B.I, guidelines. He also obtained introduction of one Pradeep Khaitan, a current account holder no. 1497 opened only on 22.12.1995 on the introduction of P. Sharma of M/s Shaunak Tie up Pvt. Ltd., having an account in fictitious name in UBI, Syed Amir Ali Avenue Branch, Calcutta duly verified by Jasobrata Basu (accused No. 2) Deputy Manager of the said bank. It was further revealed that Milon Kumar Ghosh, in order to correct the illegality, obtained another set of account opening form mentioning the date of opening as 23.12.1995 in the name of R.L. Mirpuri wherein introduction of M/s Tripti Basu maintaining account in Jodhpur park Branch of India Bank, Calcutta was obtained. It was found that Milon Kumar Ghosh, in connivance with other accused persons in the case defrauded United Bank of India and thereby dealt with huge amount of public exchequer in clandestine manner. He was shown as an accused in the charge-sheet for committing offences under section 420, 477A of IPC read with section 13(2) and 13(1) 9d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Milon Kumar Ghosh had taken out an application in the learned Judge, Special Court praying for his discharge from the case on the ground that he was not involved in the offence alleged and that in a departmental proceeding held by CVC, he was exonerated from that specific charge. The learned Court, upon consideration of the material on record and result of investigation rejected his prayer, Milon Kumar Ghosh has come up with this application challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order, mainly, on the grounds :

(3.) Mr. Sekhar Basu, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the petitioner placed the report of departmental enquiry before the Court for its perusal so that it could take a right conclusion regarding the specific allegation made out in course of investigation, against him. Learned Court simply kept that on record without giving any value to it. In fact, Mr. Basu contended, the Court did not even peruse the same. When the document of like nature wherein the delinquent was exonerated from a specific charge in a departmental enquiry, the learned Court ought to have considered the document whatsoever the result would have been. Nonconsideration of the document itself, according to Mr. Basu, is against the spirit of law and miscarriage of justice.