A BHASKARAN Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Four revisional applications under section 482 Cr.P.C. have been heard together. The prayers are the same and facts and question of law involved are exactly the same. As such they have been dealt with analogously and shall be governed by the present judgment. They arise out of 4(four) complaints which have been investigated by the C.B.I. being proceeding No. RC/12/EOW/86, RC/13/EOW/86, RC/14/EOW/86 and RC/15/EOW/86 all dt.17.12.86 under section 5(1)(d) and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 read with section 120B/420/468/471 IPC.

(2.) The complaints were made by the Deputy General Manager (Advances) of Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd. a private Bank controlled by the family of late A.M.M.S. Ganesha Nadar. The petitioner was an employee of the said Bank from 1983 to the middle part of 1985 when he resigned from the services following difference with higher officials and consequent harassment. It is the case of petitioner that in the body of the FIR the same allegations have been made against one Mr. Charles Soloman and one Mr. P.K. Ruia and there is practically no allegation against the petitioner excepting that some consideration amount has allegedly gone to a firm at Virudhu Nagar to which the present petitioner was an ex employee and his family members are partners. It is alleged that at the relevant time the petitioner was not a public servant and that the FIR does not disclose any cognizable offence against him. It is his further case that he has been included in the complaint out of spite and in order to harass. It is also in this case that if there be any claim to the Bank that is with regard to the brokerage which is a civil claim. It has also been alleged that the Bank is persuing civil claim in a Civil Court. And as such for alleged non-payment of brokerage no criminal case can lie. The right of C.B.I. to investigate the case has also been challenged, for want of alleged consent on the part of Government of West Bengal. The Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., is not a Nationalised Bank and hence C.B.I. cannot investigate. It is alleged that Institution of criminal case against the petitioner and their continuance is abuse of process of Court. The anxiety and agony of the petitioner by Institution of the four(4) criminal cases and their pendency for over 9(nine) years without there being any significant progress by the authorities in the matter of investigation of those cases has seriously prejudiced the petitioner on account of mental torture and anxiety suffered by him for these long period. It is also his case that one of the accused applied and obtained anticipatory bail in the aforesaid cases. In 1987 there was a search on the house of one of the accused. On 25.4.88 one of the accused appearing before the learned C.M.M., Calcutta and made an application for certified copy of the FIR and of some other papers when a report was called for from the I.O. On the dates so fixed on 6.5.88 the matter was heard by the learned C.M.M., in the presence of the I.O. and some of the accused persons represented by their Advocates and by order dated 21.5.88 the learned Magistrate allowed the prayer for having certified copy of the FIR. It is his positive case that on 25.4.88 one of the accused entered appearance, it is also his case that two other accused namely Jagdish Chandra Sureka and Ramchandra Nangalia also appeared before the learned C.M.M. on 15.1.88 and 18.2.88 respectively and applied for return of the cash.

(3.) One of the accused filed a revisional application under section 482 Cr.P.C. in this Court sometime in December, 1989, when the proceeding was stayed for about two weeks. Subsequently, however, the stay order was not extended. The matter was ultimately referred to the Special Bench and the Revisional Application was dismissed on 22.11.94. It is the contention of the petitioner that the said accused has filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court of India and by order dt. 11.8.95 the said Court was pleased to issue a notice upon the C.B.I. The petitioner was not made a party in the aforesaid proceeding and also was not aware of continuance of the said case. It is alleged that investigation of the cases have not been completed except to one case and that also not within the period of three years from the date of appearance of one accused, namely, 25.4.88 and as such in accordance with section 167(5) Cr.P.C. as amended by West Bengal Act 24 of 1988 continuance of investigation is bad. In the absence of any specific prayer by the investigating machinery regarding reasonableness of continuing investigation beyond the period of three years made at the appropriate time, investigation should have been stopped and accused persons should have been discharged. It is also his case that out of the four cases investigated by the C.B.I. charge-sheet was submitted in case No. RC/12/EOW/86 on 11.7.95 and the learned Court below entertained the said charge-sheet by way of taking cognizance without applying his mind to the provisions of section 167(5) Cr.P.C. as applicable to West Bengal. It has been alleged that this non-compliance of mandatory provision of law has caused serious miscarriage of justice and prejudice to the petitioner. Accordingly, the four revisional applications have been made with the prayer of quashing the four proceedings.