BROJO GOPAL KAR BHOWMICK Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT appears from the service roll of the petitioner (copy annexed to. the affidavit -in -opposition affirmed by Dhirendra Nath Mullick on 27 January 1965) that he was first appointed, on 3 October 1934, as a .temporary constable, by the Superintendent of Police, at Tipperah. Later on, he was confirmed in the rank of assistant sub -inspector, on 7 September 1941, by the then Superintendent of Police, Tipperah -Comille. After the partition of Bengal in 1947, the petitioner was absorbed in the Calcutta Police and, with effect from 1 August 1945, was promoted to officiate as a sub -inspector of police. This appears from annexure A to the petition. Thereafter, the petitioner passed a departmental examination and his name was included in list II of officiating sub -inspectors. In his career in the Calcutta Police, prior to 1956, the petitioner had his ups and downs; be earned certain rewards and commendations and also suffered certain humiliations for neglect of duty.

(2.) IN the year 1956, the petitioner and Anr. person of the name of Tarak Das Mukherjee were arrested by the police and were prosecuted before a Special Judge on charges, inter alia, under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 5(2)(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The petitioner was convicted of the charges and sentenced to a term of imprisonment by the trial Court. The conviction and sentence were, however Bet aside, on 4 August 1960, by this Court, in Criminal Appeal No. 648 of 1958, with the following observations: - - Although we have not examined the evidence carefully, the facts disclose a gross corruption which should be enquired into. The point taken on the appellant's behalf goes to the root of the jurisdiction of the Special Court. The point Is that the Court having taken cognizance of the case upon a chargesheet and not upon a complaint as required under the law, the trial was without jurisdiction. In view of a number of recent decisions of this Court, we must accept this contention and hold that the appellant's trial was without Jurisdiction.

(3.) UPON the passing of the resolution, the petitioner was reverted to his substantive post as assistant sub -inspector. The petitioner says that he has appealed against the order, which is pending. I am not, however, concerned with the propriety or otherwise of the order, because the same is not the subject -matter of this rule.