ASHIM MAITRA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENAGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revisional application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure (in short the Code) has been preferred by the petitioners praying for quashing the proceeding of Special Case No. 29 of 2006 now pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Barasat under sections 88 (4) (b)/ 88 (6)/ 88 (7) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act (hereinafter called the Sales Tax Act, 1994) and under section 409/420/120b of the Indian penal Code (in short the IPC) and for setting aside the orders passed in connection with the said case including the order dated 13. 10. 2006.

(2.) MR. Joymalya Bagchi, the learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that in the FIR only Kamal Chandra Dey, proprietor of M/s. Ganga tea Traders was made an accused. The petitioners were not named in the fir. The informant was one N. J. Roy, Commercial Tax Officer, Barrackpore and the FIR was lodged at Bijpur P. S. and, on the basis of such FIR Bijpur p. S. Case No. 95 dated 1. 6. 05 was started under the aforesaid sections of the Sales Tax Act along with section 409/468/471/120b of the IPC. The investigation was conducted by an officer of the Bureau of Investigation of madan Street, Calcutta. The Inspector of Bureau of Investigation had no authority to conduct investigation in the aforesaid Bijpur P. S. case in which there was allegation of commission of offence under section 409/420/468/ 471 of the IPC. After completing investigation chargesheet No. 113 dated 16. 9. 06 has been submitted for alleged offence under the aforesaid sections of Sales Tax Act read with section 409/420/120b of the IPC. When there was specific allegation of offence under different sections of the IPC an officer of the Bureau of Investigation could not have performed investigation into the case. The investigation was wholly illegal. The submission of chargesheet and taking of cognizance were improper and illegal and the chargesheet should be quashed.

(3.) MR. Bagchi also submitted that in a police case concerning commission of offence under the IPC only police can investigate but not the Bureau. The powers of Bureau and the powers of police are not identical. The persons attached to Bureau of Investigation are subordinate staffs of Bureau and they are under the supervision of Commercial Tax Officers and are subordinate to them. The designation of a Deputy Superintendent of Police attached to the Bureau cannot override the powers of police officers incorporated in the statute. In this case, neither section 4 nor section 36 of the Code would come to the aid of the Bureau to assume jurisdiction of investigation into offence under the IPC. The higher rank police officer as mentioned in section 36 cannot be construed to include Deputy superintendent of Police attached to Bureau. Section 36 would be guided by the higher rank police officer who can exercise power of investigation under the provisions of the Code. In this case accordingly the officers of the Bureau of Investigation had no authority to proceed with the investigation.