ASIT KUMAR ADAK Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by petitioner Sri Asit Kumar Adak against the opposite party Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Crime Branch, Economic Offence Wing, CGO Complex, Salt Lake 700064 for setting aside the order dated 28.02.2014 passed by learned Judge, 3rd Special Court, Calcutta in Special Case No. 04 of 2001 whereby prayer for discharge of the petitioner has been rejected. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the entire proceeding in Special Case No. 4/2001 corresponding to R.C. Case No. 8/98 dated 19.01.1998 under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 409 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 13 (2) and 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (State Vs. Asit Adak & Ors,) pending before the 3rd Special Court, Calcutta. At the initial stage of this case, the petitioner made a prayer for granting stay of proceedings in the Court below but that prayer was rejected on 11.09.2014 by a coordinate Bench of this High Court. On the date of hearing no one appeared for petitioner but since there is prayer for revision also of an order of learned Judge, 3rd Special Court, Calcutta together with prayer for quashing the proceeding, the petitioner's application is required to be decided on merits. Hence, this judgment.

(2.) Succinctly, the case of the petitioner is that in the Court below the petitioner alongwith six others have been made accused of the charges under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 409 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 13 (2) and 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for their involvement in criminal conspiracy, by abusing their position as public servant, for cheating the Allahabad Bank. Said complaint was lodged by one Subrata Chakraborty Inspector of Police CBI/ASB/Calcutta on 19th January, 1998 to the effect that the accused persons made reckless advances to some private firms to the tune of Rs.3,36,11,000 approximately in the form of clean overdraft beyond sanction limit unauthorisedly and irregularly in relation to the bank norms and procedure and thereby committed the offence of cheating against Allahabad Bank. Present petitioner was the then Chief Manager of Allahabad Bank Red Cross Place, Calcutta and he allowed undue favour to M/s Calcutta Veneer Industries Pvt. Ltd. by allowing clean overdraft on different dates from December 1992 to April 1993. He had also wilfully overlooked unlawful sanction of financial benefit allowing excess bank guarantee limit to M/s Jain Associates. With similar series of allegations the petitioner was made accused in that case for allowing cash-drawing in favour of M/s. Calcutta Extrusion Pvt. Ltd. unauthorisedly and irregularly. Central Bureau of Investigation as the Investigating Agency submitted three separate charge-sheets in that case after completion of investigation against the accused persons. Cognizance was taken of the offences on all the three charge-sheets on 20.12.2001 by learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta and the cases were transferred to the file of learned Special Judge, 3rd Court at Calcutta and upon receipt of records of the case, learned Special Judge, 3rd Court, Calcutta issued process in the name of the petitioner on 05.02.2002. The petitioner made a prayer before the learned Special Judge for his discharge on the ground of deliberate delay caused by the prosecution stating inter alia that an amicable settlement has been attained by the Allahabad Bank with the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground that three charge-sheets were illegally submitted against one First Information Report. Petitioner has cited a decision dated 24.9.2012 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. The State of Punjab and Anr. stating in paragraph 7 of this application the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Learned Special Judge, 3rd Court has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for discharge and, therefore, the instant case has been filed by the petitioner. I have gone through the application of the petitioner and certified copy of the impugned order dated 28.02.2014 passed by learned Judge, 3rd Special Court, Calcutta in Special Case No. 4 of 2001. In the impugned order rejecting the prayer of the petitioner learned Judge, Special Court has observed that mere repayment of loan under settlement cannot exempt accused from criminal proceedings when the criminal conspiracy was alleged and prima facie offence against the accused has been made out by filing specific charge-sheet after prolonged investigation by the C.B.I. On going through the impugned order I do not find anything against legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned order. In my view, said order does not cause miscarriage of justice. In paragraph 7 of the application the petitioner has referred to some observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh's case. On going through the same it appears from observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court that any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act of the offences committed by public servant while working in that position etc. cannot provide for any basis for quashing the criminal proceedings involving such offences. This observation clearly goes against the petitioner in the instant case. This Court is satisfied to follow the Latin maxim, 'factum infectum fieri nequit' (thing done cannot be undone). The alleged offence is grave in nature against the society relating to finance involving public at large. Excepting the charge under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code all other charges brought against petitioner are non-compoundable. Provision under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for exercising such power to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Said section provides for giving effect to any order under the Code of Criminal Procedure and not for violating the provisions of the Code including Section 320 of that Code which stands on the way of compounding the offences punishable under Sections 467/468/471/409/120B of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Filing of multiple chargesheets on single FIR is not barred when circumstances prevail, like the instant case, so demand. Learned Judge in the trial Court has very rightly followed the decision is of this High Court in the case of Ramkrishna Goswami Vs. The State of West Bengal and Another, 2014 1 CalCriLR 357 which has also been cited by learned Advocate for the opposite party at the time of hearing this case. It is true that there is inordinate delay in disposal of the case in the trial Court but that alone cannot be a ground for quashing the proceedings of the trial Court. It appears from the impugned order that in the trial Court the case is in the stage of trial as the case was fixed on 5.5.2014 for recording prosecution evidence. A direction may be given to the trial Court for concluding the trial within six months from the date of communication of copy of this judgment.

(3.) In summing up, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner's application is devoid of merit and, therefore, the application stands dismissed. However, let there be a direction upon the trial Court for concluding the trial in Special Case No. 04 of 2001 expeditiously and preferably within six months from the date of communication of copy of this judgment. A copy of this judgment be sent to the 3rd Special Court, Calcutta for information and compliance of the direction. Urgent certified photocopy of this Judgment and order, if applied for, be supplied promptly to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.