CBI Vs. BIMAL KUMAR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The hearing stems from an application under section 401 read with section 482 Cr. PC filed by the petitioner praying for revision of the order dated 11.07.2002 passed by the learned Judge, Second Special Court, Calcutta in Special Case No. 2/96 arising out of RC 11(A)/ 1991-Cal under sections 420/468/471/477A IPC/13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2.) The circumstances leading to the above application are that on the basis of a source information on 26.02.91 that the O.P. Bimal Kumar Das, an officer of United Commercial Bank, Rajabazar Branch, Kolkata had introduced on 11.07.1989 one Ganesh Chandra Mazumder and Jagadish Chandra Ghosh to open savings bank account No. 8533 with the said branch where the transaction through the said account till 24.09.90 was Rs. 2,500/- and between 10.11,90 and 10.12.90 a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- was falsely shown to have been deposited in the said account in the ledger by the O.P. by depositing cheques and for clearing by the O.P., that subsequently Rs. 1,20,000/- was withdrawn by false instruments resulting in cheating the bank to the extent of said amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- and by similar method a sum of Rs. 1,89,300/- was withdrawn from savings bank account No. 8588 of the said branch standing in the joint name of Bijoy Kumar Dey and Smt. Anju Dey, RC 11(A)/1991-Cal under sections 420/468/471/477A IPC/13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Curruption Act, 1988, hereinafter referred to as the said Act, was registered against the said 0. P. After obtaining sanction on 19.12.91 from the General Manager (Offg.) (Personnel) of the United Commercial Bank, Kolkata under section 19(1)(c) of the said Act and after completion of investigation chargesheet was submitted on 31.03.93 whereupon the learned Court took cognizance on 02.04.93 and issued process. The O.P. filed an application on 08.12.94 for discharge on the ground of void and invalid cognizance in view of the decision of this Court in H. D. Barman vs. State, and the Court dropped the proceeding and discharged the accused by order dated 28.02.95 holding that the order of taking cognizance was void and invalid. A fresh police report similar to the one dated 31.03.93 was submitted on 04.07.96 and the Court after taking cognizance issued process. On the date of framing of charge on 11.07.2002 the learned Court discharged the O.P. on the grounds that in view of the earlier order of discharge a fresh chargesheet or a second chargesheet is not permissible, that the prosecution did not prefer any revision against the said order of discharge, that the procedural law does not envisage filing of a fresh case relying upon the documents of previous case and that the accused could not be subjected to double jeopardy on account of his discharge in the earlier case.

(3.) Being aggrieved by, and dissatisfied with, the said order, the petitioner has come up before this Court.