SUDIP CHATTERJEE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he (petitioner) is a Panel Advocate of a Bank and he is in no way connected with the Balurghat P.S. case No. 246(11) dated 27.5.2011 under Sections 420/471/34/120B of the Indian Penal Code (subsequently added Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code). It was further contended by him that in the said case there was an allegation of malpractice adopted by fraudulent means regarding security aspect for releasing cash credit loan amounting to Rs. 8 lacs to one Sujit Chatterjee. It was further contended that in Lok Adalat, the said Sujit Chatterjee deposited Rs. 1 lac on 23.5.2011 and Rs. 665763/- on 27.5.2011 in terms of the order of the Lok Adalat held in presence of both sides therein vide Annexure P-2 and in the meantime Sujit Chatterjee and another co-accused Kalyan Chatterjee have been granted bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and thereafter the present petitioner got anticipatory bail in CRM No. 5818 of 2011 on 22.7.2011 and never the present petitioner has been arrested by Police in connection with the aforesaid case. But strangely enough, by the impugned order dated 1.10.2011, the learned court below on the prayer of the 1.0, has directed the present petitioner to furnish specimen handwriting for examination.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in terms of the proviso clause of Section 311A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no order should be made unless the person has at the sometime been arrested in connection with the investigation or proceedings. Section 311A of the Code of Criminal Procedure runs as follows:

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State was fair enough to state that a proviso clause in Section 311A of the Code of Criminal Procedure is there.