SUBRTAPATRA Vs. DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Twenty-one Criminal Revisional Application involving common question of law have been taken up together for orders here. 1A. In Criminal Revision No. 434, of 1994 (Baidyanath Bose and others v. State), the peti tioner No. 1 is the Branch Manager of Hooghly District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Haripal Branch. Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are Cultivators. Other petitioners are doing various works. On 8 -4-1983 the Chief Accountant of Hooghly District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. lodged a com plaint at Chinsurah P. S. to the effect that the petitioner No. 2 along with the other petitioners committed cheating in respect of a huge sum of money by way of criminal conspiracy and forg ery of documents. Accordingly, Chinsurah P. S. Case No. 4. dated 8-4-83 was started under Sections 468/420/120B of the IPC The petitioners were granted anticipatory bail by the High Court and some of them surrendered before the Ld. SDJM of 17-6-83 and the rest on 25-6-83. The final report was submitted on 28-2-90. There was a protest-petition filed by the de-facto complain ant. Ultimately the final report was not accepted and the Learned Magistrate directed re-investi gation. Charge-sheet was submitted on 18-1-94 and the Ld. Magistrate took cognizance from that date. The contention of the petitioners is that as the amended provision of Section 167(5) of the Cr. P.C. came into effect on and from 2-5-1989 and as the 10 merely prayed for time on 2-6-89, 30-8-89 and 17-9-93 and the Learned Magistrate mechanically allowed the prayers without appli cation of mind, therefore, they were entitled to an order of discharge on the expiry of the stipulated period under the amended provisions of the Cr. P.C. Accordingly the petitioners have come be fore this Court for quashing the proceedings being GR Case No. 4 dated 8-4-83.

(2.) In Criminal Revision In Re : (Niranjan Pandit v. State), the petitioner No. 1 is the hus band of the victim wife and the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are the brothers of the accused-husband. The petitioner No. 4 is the sister of the husband and the petitioner No. 5 is his mother. It was alleged in the FIR filed on 24-4-89 that the wife had committed suicide by taking poison due to the mental and physical torture of the accused persons. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were ar rested on 24-8-89 and the petitioner No. 3 surren dered on 19-5-89 and the petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 on 6-6-89. Charge-sheet was submitted on 11- 10-93 after discharge order was passed on 1-1-93. The Ld. Magistrate by order dated 11-3-94 has been pleased to hold that the court can take cognizance even after the expiry of the statutory period, in view of the reported decision of the apex Court of our land in State of West Bengal v. Falguni Dutta and Anr. 1993 C.Cr. LR (SC) 125. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Ld. Magistrate, the petitioners have come before this Court for quashing the proceedings.

(3.) In Criminal Revision In Re : (Bhabesh Ch. Barman v. State), the petitioner surrendered in the Court of the Ld. Special Judge under E.C. Act. Cooch-behar on 24-10-90 in connection with Mathabhanga PS Case No. 57 dated 24-10 -90 under Section 7(1) (a) (ii) of the E.C. Act. Charge-sheet was submitted under the said Section on 27-4-93 and cognizance was taken on that date. The petitioner contends that as charge-sheet was submitted beyond six months from 24-10 90, there being no extension of the time for investigation according to law, he was entitled to an order of discharge on the expiry of the stipu lated time. He has come before this court for quashing ECGR Case No. 11/90 now pending in the court of the Ld. Special Judge (E.C. Act.), Coach-behar.