CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Vs. JOYDEB DASGUPTA

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 13.08.2002 passed by the learned Judge, Second Special Court, Calcutta in Special Case No. 08/95 discharging the O.P from the case.

(2.) The circumstances leading to the above application are that on receipt of source information that the O.P., Senior Manager of Canara Bank, Rabindra Sarani Branch, Kolkata entered into a criminal conspiracy with some unknown persons and had sanctioned a loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- against one Kamdhenu Deposit Receipt (KDR No. 372/87) preparing forged documents without the knowledge of the depositor and cheated the said Bank to the tune of the said amount, that one Sukanta Sarkar purchased the KDR bearing No. 372/87 dated 28.11.87 for Rs. 5,00,000/- from Rabindra Sarani Branch of Canara Bank by depositing the abovementioned amount through a draft purchased from United Industrial Bank, Gariahat Branch, Kolkata and the O.P. authenticated the signature of Sukanta Sarkar on his KDR application and replaced the original application with another application bearing forged signature of Sukanta Sarkar, and unauthorisedly sanctioned a loan of Rs. 1,80,000/- vide VSL (Loan against Valuable Security) bearing No. 40/88 dated 03.08.88 against the aforesaid KDR and thereafter on 13.10.88 sanctioned another additional amount of Rs. 20,000/- against the said VSL without the knowledge of the depositor, and against the said loan of Rs. 1,80,000/- a payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- was made to one Subhas Chandra Dutta through Pay Order No. 820/88 and the balance amount of Rs. 30,000/- was paid by the O.P. through Pay order No. 821/88 in favour of Calcutta Loan & Housing Development Corporation towards part payment of a flat booked by him at Salimpur, the additional amount of Rs. 20,000/- was paid to one Nemai Chandra Dutta vide Pay Order No. 1103/88 and after maturity of the said KDR on 28.11.88 an amount of Rs. 3,39,839.25 was paid to the depositor Sukanta Sarkar through Pay Order No. 1227/88 dated 28.11.88 after adjusting the VSL liability and the O.P. in connivance with others fraudulently and dishonestly by abusing his official position withdrew Rs. 2,00,000/- as VSL in the names of third parties against the aforesaid KDR by forging the Bank records and thereby cheated the Bank causing pecuniary loss to the Bank to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- and corresponding gain to themselves, R.C. 24(A)/1989-Cal under section 120B/420/467/468/471 IPC/ 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered on 16.05.89 against the O.P. Joydeb Dasgupta and other unknown persons, and after completion of investigation chargesheet was submitted on 13.09.90 whereupon cognizance was taken by the learned Court below, process was issued and charge was framed against the accused on 29.02.92.

(3.) The revisional application filed by the 0. P. before this Court for quashing the proceeding was disposed of on 04.05.94 with a direction to the learned Court below to dispose of the case. The O. P. then filed an application in the learned Court below on 12.08.94 for his discharge on the ground of the order of taking cognizance being void and invalid in view of the decision of this Court in the case of H.D. Barman vs. State, and the learned Court allowed the prayer, dropped the proceeding and discharged the accused on 26.09.94. On 21.12.95 police report, similar to that of the earlier report, was submitted whereupon the learned Court below took cognizance on 22.12.95 and and issued process. On 11.02.98, the 0. P. filed an application for discharge on the ground of non-maintainability of the case which was dismissed on 24.03.98. At the time of framing charge on 13.08.2002, the learned Court below pronounced an order of discharge of me O. P. on threefold grounds viz. (1) speedy justice is a fundamental right of a litigant, (2) taking cognizance twice upon the same facts and documents without disclosure of any new evidence is not permissible under the procedural law and (3) there was no ground to proceed against the accused person.