CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Vs. KARAN CHETRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Central Bureau of Investigation has challenged the order dated December 30, 2014 passed by the learned Judge, 3rd Special CBI Court, Calcutta in Special Case No. 09 of 2010 by filing this revisional application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(2.) It appears from record that on July 3, 2008 one Ranjan Debnath filed one written complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti-corruption Branch, Nizam Palace, 234/4, AJC Bose Road, Kolkata 700020 alleging demand of bribe of Rs. 4,000/- by the opposite party Karan Chetri for issuance of a passport by the Regional Passport Office, Kolkata. It is further alleged in the said written complaint that out of Rs.4,000/- demanded by the opposite party Karan Chetri Rs.3,000/- will be handed over to the counter clerk of the Passport Office for the purpose of getting passport of the de facto complainant. The written complaint was treated as First Information Report being RC 0102008A0028 dated July 3, 2008 under Sections 7 & 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. It further appears from record that on completion of investigation, the CBI submitted charge sheet on January 9, 2009 against one Uttam Kumar Behera and the present opposite party Karan Chetri before learned Judge, 3rd Special CBI Court, Calcutta. It also appears from record that the accused Uttam Kr. Behera filed an application before the trial court under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge from the criminal case. Learned Judge of the trial court heard both sides and allowed the application filed by the accused Uttam Kumar Behera under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and discharged him from the said criminal case on December 30, 2014. By the said order dated December 30, 2014 learned Judge of the trial court also discharged the present opposite party Karan Chetri from the said criminal case on the ground that in the absence of trial of any public servant, the charge against the preset opposite party cannot be framed. The Central Bureau of Investigation has challenged the order dated December 30, 2014 passed by learned Judge of the trial court only for discharge of the opposite party Karan Chetri from the criminal case.

(3.) Mr. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner, CBI contends that the opposite party Karan Chetri can be prosecuted under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 even though he is not a public servant. According to Mr. Ali, the order passed by learned Judge of the trial court by discharging the opposite party Karan Chetri from the criminal case is not justified under the law and as such the said portion of the order passed by learned Judge of the trial court is liable to be set aside.