PUSKAR MALHOTRA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revisional application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire proceedings as well as the impugned order dated 30th April, 1991 passed in G. R. 948 of 1988 pending in the court of the Third Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. On the basis of a written complaint dated the 24th July, 1986 lodged by the Deputy Controller of Imports and Exports of Calcutta the C. B. I. , recorded the F. I. R. on the 5th August, 1986 under Sections 420/468/471 indian Penal Code and Section 5 of the Imports Exports (Control) Act, 1947: After completion of investigation the C. B. I, submitted chargesheet on he 30th March, 1988 under Sections 420/468/471/120b I. P. C. The petitioner accused filed an application before the learned court below for discharge under Section 239 Cr. P. C. on the 23rd July, 1990. The learned court below took up the matter for consideration of framing of charge. The hearing in the matter continued on 21st August, 1990 and the next date for further hearing as I find, was fixed on 4th September, 1990. On 4th september, 1990 a supplementary charge sheet along with some papers was filed and the learned court below fixed 30th November, 1990 for hearing on the questions of the acceptance of the said supplementary charge sheet. The matter was thereafter directed to be fixed on 30th April, 1991 and on that date by the impugned order the learned court below, after going through the case record and after hearing the learned special p. P. , directed the supplementary charge sheet to be treated as part of the original charge sheet and then fixed a date for hearing of the petition of the accused for discharge under Section 239 Cr. P. C. It is needless to mention here that the question whether the accused is to be discharged under section 239 Cr. P. C. or any charge is to be framed under Section 240 cr. P. C. refers to the same composite stage of the procedure where the magistrate has to consider the question whether charge is required to be framed against the accused or he has to be discharged.

(2.) THE point raised before me on behalf of the petitioner accused is that in view of the amended provisions of Section 167 (5) Cr. P. C. as applicable in west Bengal there is no scope of filing any supplementary charge sheet once a charge sheet has been submitted after completion of investigation. It is the argument of the learned Advocate far the petitioner that accordingly the learned court below can not take into consideration the supplementary charge sheet or the materials referred to therein while considering the question of framing of charge in this case. Section 173 (8) Cr. P. C. of course contemplates submission of further report (commonly termed as supplementary charge sheet) after a charge sheet has already been submitted on completion of investigation. As regards Sub-section (8) of section 173 it is the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner, to quote his own language, that the said Sub-section (8) of Section 173 stands 'suffocated' by the West Bengal amendment of Section 167 (5)Cr. P. C. and therefore, so far as West Bengal is concerned, once charge sheet has been submitted after completion of investigation there is no scope of filing any supplementary charge sheet under Section 173 (8) Cr. P. C.

(3.) THE original Sub-section (5) of section 167 Cr. P. C. runs thus: