MALAY CHAKRABORTY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revisional application under Section 401 and 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashing of the proceeding being Spl. Case No. 18 of 2008 now pending before the learned Third Special Court, Calcutta arising out of Crime No: 34 of 1996 dated 03.07.1996 under Sections 120B/420/409 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(2)/13(1)(d) of the Prevention and Corruption Act read with Section 20 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1887.

(2.) Brief fact of the case giving rise to aforesaid criminal proceeding as reflected in the FIR is that some unknown phone Mechanics/Mazdurs/helpers of the Maintenance Control Department of 26 Exchange of the Calcutta Telephone while functioning in their official capacity entered into criminal conspiracy with one Sri Dipak Das, 12, Haider Lane, 1st floor, Calcutta and others to cheat Calcutta Telephone. In furtherance of such common intention such officials of maintenance control department by abusing their official position had dishonestly connected in his STD telephone line having No. 26-3108 in the name of Sri Dipak Das, 12, Haider Lane, Calcutta which was installed in the 2nd Floor of the premises to a STD/ISD line by connecting the line with the cable of telephone numbers 26-7245 and 26-9064 standing in the name of Sri Gayaprasad Das, 27/B, Crick Row/Calcutta and office of the Director PMG, WB Circle, P-36, C.R. Avenue Calcutta respectively having STD/ISD facilities. As a consequence huge unauthorised STD/ISD calls metering from 55301 to 79216 units were dishonestly made from telephone No. 26-3108 in the year 1995 through the meters of telephone nos. 26-7245 and 26-9064. As a consequence Calcutta Telephones sustained loss to the tune of about Rs. 80,476/-. During the course of investigation CBI authorities submitted charge sheet against three accused persons namely, Sri Malay Chakraborty, Md. Washi and Jitendra Kumar on 28.02.1997. The said Malay Chakraborty is the present petitioner who surrendered before the learned trial Court on 14.07.2008 and was released on bail.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the allegations levelled against the present petitioner are baseless. Firstly, Md. Washi had claimed that it was his SDOP, Malay Chakraborty, the present petitioner, who made the verification and he asked him to install the telephone at the address mentioned in the form but from the copy of the relevant form BT 92 (L) it will appear that the petitioner directed the said Md. Washi to install the telephone in the room of one Deepak Das on the first floor of 12, Haider Lane but the.said Md. Washi had installed the same on the second floor of 12, Haider Lane for which the petitioner cannot be held responsible at all. The second allegation against the petitioner as mentioned in the charge sheet is that the petitioner passed necessary order for supply of telephone connection but he has failed to furnish his own order contained in original form No. BT 92 (L) containing the signature of the person who had obtained the telephone in the name of the said Dipak Das and he also could not keep any impression of the person who appeared before him at his office on the receipt of the work order in the name of Deepak Das. The petitioner has further contended that the disputed connection was installed in the flats of one Jitendra Kumar Ratnakar by Md. Washi and, therefore, it is within the special knowledge of the said Mr. Ratnakar and Md. Washi as to who had obtained the telephone in the fictitious name of one Deepak Das. The third contention of the petitioner is that he issued the memo of work on the basis of the work order issued by his higher official Co/City (commercial officer, City) in favour of Deepak Das and in fact in doing so he had carried out the order of his superior officer. The fourth contention of the petitioner is that under Rule 12 of the Telephone Rules it is the duty of the field staff to ensure that the telephone is provided only to the right person at the right place. Therefore, in the discharge of his official duties and particularly in carrying out orders of his superiors for extending the speedy telephone lines to the public without unnecessary harassment and unusual delay his conduct will come under the purview of the Section 79 of the Indian Penal Code as he was justified by law to do the job in good faith.