RAMKRISHNA GOSWAMI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated August 5, 2011 passed by learned Special Judge, 3rd Special Court, Calcutta in Special Case No. 5 of 2011 directing framing of charge against him under section 120B/420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution case is to the effect that the petitioner as the Senior Manager of Canara Bank, College Street Branch, Kolkata, during the period from 2005 to 2007 entered into a conspiracy with Anil Kumar and Md. Wahid Murad, proprietor of M/s. Faisal Trading, which is a non-existing firm, and pursuant thereto on the basis of forged and fabricated documents i.e. audited Balance Sheets dated 12/08/2002, 17/07/2003 and 23/06/2004 respectively, sanctioned O.C.C. limit of Rs. 16 lakhs on 22/8/2005 and further enhanced such limit to Rs. 21 lakhs on the basis of forged and fabricated audit reports dated 12/07/2006 and 31/10/2006.

(2.) On such accusation, the learned Judge framed charges under section 120B/420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act of 1988") against the petitioner.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that at the time of taking cognizance the petitioner was no longer a public servant and therefore, the learned Special Court had no jurisdiction to try the case. He relied on the decision reported in the case of State of West Bengal v. Shyamadas Banerjee & Ors., 2008 3 SCC(Cri) 671, in support of his contention. He further submitted that although a First Information Report was registered, the same resulted in filing of thirteen charge-sheets, one of which has resulted in framing of charge in the impugned case. Learned counsel further submitted that investigation in respect of one First Information Report must result in filing of a single charge-sheet and the investigating agency had no power to split up the case into thirteen charge-sheets, which is most harassive for the petitioner. He relied on 2012 (2) CCrLR (Cal) 875 and : 2013 CrLJ 2807.