S.C. MITTER Vs. THE KING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matter for decision in this Rule lies within a narrow compass but it is necessary to mention the facts in some detail, The petitioner was appointed Director of Industries, Bengal in 1937 and was made the Agent of the Government of India in 1911 for procurement and supply of War materials. In October 1944 he was appointed Deputy Director General (Pro. duotion) and Controller of Supplies, Bengal Circle. On 26th October 1945 the petitioner's residence was searched, it is said, at the instance of the Special Police Establishment, Ministry of Home Affairs. On 14th August 1947 the petitioner was placed under suspension. On 22nd November 1947 an officer of the Special Police Establishment filed 7 petitions of complaint in the Court of the First Special Tribunal, Calcutta, against the petitioner and others charging them with having committed offences under S3. 120B, 161,16S, etc., Penal Code.

(2.) CASE No. 1 was against the petitioner only, the charge being for conspiracy with one Sripati Mukherjee and others under Section 120B, read with s. 166, Penal Code. There were also specifics charge of overt acts alleged to come within Section 165, Penal Code with referenoe to gifts and the like said to have been taken for himself and other offioera and gifts of money said to have been procured by the petitioner from Sripati Mukherjee and for named subordinates of the petitioner. These sums of money are the subject -matter of four separate oases, viz., oases Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 of 1947, against the respective accused.

(3.) CASE No. 2, was against the petitioner and two others under Section 120B, read with Section 161, Penal Code, the charge alleged being for obtaining and accepting money from Sripati Mukherjee at the rate of approximately 40 p. o. of the profits made from contract for jute and cotton tents. The remaining case no. 3 was against the petitioner and one other. The petitioner has been discharged from this case by the First Special Tribunal, Oases nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 need not be referred to further except to say that in case no. 7, it is said, proceedings have been qua. shed by this Court.