PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, CALCUTTA Vs. ABHIJIT BOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revisional application at the instance of the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Calcutta, is directed against an order passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta dated 28 -8 -1981 passed in Cri Reva Case No. 33 of 1981 arising out of G. R. Case No. 1903 of 1978 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Calcutta.

(2.) THE opposite party Abhijit Bose is the Managing Director of M/s. Polymold (P) Ltd. The said firm is carrying on business as a trader and also engaged in export business. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Calcutta, filed a written complaint on 6 -8 -1977 on the basis of which a case was registered and the police ultimately submitted a charge -sheet against the opposite party Abhijit Bose and another under Section 120B/420/468/471, Penal Code, and under Section 132/135/135A Customs Act, 1962. The principal allegation was that the opposite party Abhijit Bose had used three forged blue -books in respect of 3 cars bearing Registration Nos. WBA 30, WBA 9098 and RJA 603 as genuine knowing them to be forged and submitted them along with 3 shipping bills to the customs authorities for exporting the said cars to U.K. making declaration in the shipping bills knowing or having reasons to believe that such declaration was false. Precisely the allegation was that there is a prohibition against the export of vintage cars manufactured prior to 1940 and that of the 3 said cars two were manufactured prior to 1940 but the blue -books and other documents were forged and fabricated in order that the vehicles may be exported. On the complaint being filed before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 12 -7 -1978 on the allegation of commission of offences under the aforesaid sections, cognizance was taken and process was issued. The opposite party appeared before the learned Magistrate and was released on bail. On 3 -11 -1980 and 29 -1 -1981 the opposite party filed two applications before the learned Magistrate challenging the jurisdiction of the court in taking cognizance and prayed for dropping the said case.

(3.) THE learned Metropolitan Magistrate initially fixed 2 -3 -1981 for hearing of the petitions filed by the accused opposite party. On 2 -3 -81 he again fixed 27 -3 -1981 for hearing and finally on 27 -3 -81 he passed an order fixing 6 -4 -1981 for orders on the petitions dated 29 -1 -81 and 3 -11 -80. On 6 -4 -1981 the learned Magistrate observed that this being a case instituted on a police report, the court had no power to drop the proceedings without considering the materials for framing of any charge and that if on a consideration of the materials it appeared that the charge against the accused was groundless then they would be entitled to an order of discharge under Section 239. Cr.P.C. That being the position, the learned Magistrate thought it proper to hear the two petitions along with the materials on record while considering the point as to framing of charge and accordingly fixed 28 -4 -1981 for consideration of charge along with the petitions of the accused (opposite party before us). Against the order passed on 6 -4 -1981 the opposite party 1 moved the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court at Calcutta in revision being Cri Revn. Case No.33 of 1981 under Sections 397 and 399 Cr.P.C. By the order impugned in the present revisional application the learned Chief Judge overruled the objection of the complainant regarding the maintainability of the revisional application and upon a consideration of the materials held that the cognizance in the case has been improperly taken and that the proceeding was liable to be dropped. In that view of the matter, he allowed the revisional application and directed that the proceedings in G. R. Case No. 1903 of 1978 against the petitioner be dropped.