RAM SWARUP PROSAD Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant application under sections 397, 401 and 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is for quashing the criminal proceding in G.R.Case No. 2263 of 1995 pending in the 12th Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta.

(2.) How the aforesaid proceeding arose may be stated thus: Ram Swarup Prasad, the petitioner of the present revisional application preferred in application being FMAT N. 955 of 1994 against the order dated 10th March, 1994 passed by P.K.Mukherjee, J. as His Lordship then was, in a civil order of 1994 in connection with Suryakesh Singh and ors. v. State of West Bengal and ors. and moved the Division Bench of this court composed of Tarun Chatterjee and Nure Alam Chowdhury, JJ. during summer vacation of this court in the year 1994 on 27.5.94. The Division Bench passed certain order in FMAT No. 955 of 1994 on 27.5.94. Subsequently, two applications were filed for recalling the order that was purported to have been passed by the said Division Bench in FMAT No. 955 of 1994. One of the applications was taken up for hearing by that Division Bench on 24.11.94 and the hearing continued till 8.12.94. In course of hearing of that application, it transpired that the purported signatures of the learned Judges composing that Division Bench appearing in the original order-sheet were not theirs. The contents of the purported order dated 27.5.94 that was appearing in the order-sheet also appeared to the Bench to be unusual. The Bench directed the Registered, Appellate Side, to ascertain from the relevant shorthand note-book as to what order was actually passed by the Bench on 27.5.94 in FMAT No. 955 of 1994. In pursuance of that direction, the Registrar located the relevant shorthand note-book and got the relevant transcript typed out. It was then detected that the order that was appearing in the record as the purported order of the Bench passed on 27.5.94 was not really the order that was actually passed by the Bench on that particular day in connection with that case. The Bench found that the purported order appearing in the order-sheet was a forged and fabricated one. It also transpired in course of hearing, that on the basis of the forged order a sum of Rs. 2,500 was withdrawn from the bank and certain documents were taken away from the S.D.O., Barrackpore with whom they were lying. The present petitioner claimed before the Division Bench to have taken the certified copy of the purported order dated 27.5.94 and on being directed by the Bench produced a xerox copy of the alleged certified copy of the impugned order before the Bench. The petitioner was the appellant opposite party before the Bench, and it came to light in course of hearing that Mr. Samiran Mondal appearing on behalf of the appellant in the said appeal had written letters to various authorities on the basis of a xerox copy of the certified copy of the impugned order dated 27.5.94 and produced xerox copy of the said letter along with xerox copy of the alleged certified copy of the impugned order before the Bench. The present petitioner was appearing before the Bench through Mr. Bihani, an advocate. During the hearing of the application for recalling the impugned ordr and claimed to have applied for the certified copy of the impugned order, pleading, however, his inability to disclose the name of the advocate's clerk through whom he made that application for obtaining the certified copy. The petitioner as the appellant further stated before the Bench that the original certified copy of the impugned order was handed over to him by the said clerk and that the said original certified copy was handed over to some persons whose names were not known to him and that the said certified copy was not lying with him. The Bench directed the Registrar, Appellate Side, also to inquire as to whether the present petitioner did really apply for a certified copy of the impugned order and was furnished with such copy by the court. The Registrar on inquiry found that the appellant petitioner did not really apply for the certified copy of the impugned order and that all his statements to the contrary made before the Bench were false. The Registrar also reported to the Bench that the xerox copy of the certified copy of the impugned order which was produced by the appellant petitioner was actually obtained by him through some dubious means. Upon consideration of all the materials collected during the hearing of the said application for recalling the impugned order, the Bench by an order dated 21.12.94 concluded that serious offences of fraud, cheating and forgery had been committed and thought it fit that the matter should be properly investigated and the offender brought to book. Accordingly, the Division Bench directed the DIG of Police, CBI, Calcutta Region to investigate and submit its report. The Bench also directed the Registrar, Appellate Side, to render all assistance to the investigating officer by making all relevant files, documents. papers etc. available to the investigating officer. The Registrar was also directed to serve a true copy of that order upon the DIG of Police, CBI. The matter was directed to be enlisted for further orders on 17.2.95 and the investigating officer was directed to submit the report on the date.

(3.) Pursuant to this order, the then Registrar by his letter dated 2.11.95 forwarded a xerox copy of the order to the DIG of Police, CBI for his perusal and necessary action.