SUBIR KUMAR BASU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter called the Code) has been filed by the petitioner aiming at quashing the criminal proceeding being Case No. 4 of 1985 now pending in the Court of the learned Judge, 5th Special Court. Calcutta under section 420/ 120B of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPO and for setting aside the order dated 30.7.1985 passed by the said learned Judge taking cognizance of offence.

(2.) Mr. Ashim Kumar Roy, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid case arose out of Park Street Police Station (in short P.S.) Case No. 126 dated 5.3.1981 under section 420/ 120B of the IPC. After registration of the said case, a search and seizure was conducted by Calcutta Police on 6.3.1981 at the office premises of Central Group and police officers seized number of documents. The petitioner moved this Court in writ jurisdiction for quashing the criminal investigation and Tarun Kumar Basu, J. was pleased to quash the investigation by order dated 24.5.1982. Against the said order the State Government preferred an appeal before a Division Bench of this Court and the Appeal Court affirmed the order of quashing investigation by judgment dated 22.7.1983. Against the order of the Appellate Court dated 22.7.1983 the State preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that the investigation will continue but, no final report shall be filed without the leave of the Supreme Court.

(3.) Mr. Ashim Kr. Roy also contended that the investigating agency without taking leave of the Supreme Court filed chargesheet before the appropriate Court. Thereafter, the Supreme Court by order dated 19.7.1985 observed that since chargesheet has already been filed nothing survives in this appeal and hence, the judgment of the High Court will not affect further proceedings being taken on the basis of the chargesheet. The learned Judge by order dated 30.7.1985 on receipt of chargesheet took cognizance of offence. Mr. Roy contended that surprisingly according to provisions of the Code copies of vital material documents were not supplied to the accused persons including the petitioner. Thereafter by order No.47 dated 11.3.1989 the learned Trial Judge directed the prosecution to supply copies of the documents which are relevant for the ends of justice and over which the prosecution will place reliance during trial. Mr. Roy also contended that being aggrieved by the order of the learned Trial Judge the State preferred revisional application before this Court being Criminal Revision No. 9 of 1990 wherein a rule was issued directing stay of operation of the impugned order. The criminal revision application was dismissed by this Court in 2000 which fact becomes clear from order No. 92 dated 18.12.2000 passed by the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court in the said order observed that the rule was discharged and the High Court has directed to conclude the trial with utmost expedition and 31.1.2001 was fixed for appearance of the accused persons.