PRANABJYOTI BARMAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr B Barman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr S C Keyal, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents/CBI.

(2.) The petitioner, herein, is facing trial as one of the accused in CR(Special) Case No. 2966/2015, under Sections 120 (B)/ 406/420 IPC, read with Sections 3, 4, 5 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, pending before the learned Special Magistrate, Kamrup (M). On the basis of an FIR, dated 03.07.2014, CID Case No. 14/2011 was registered, but subsequently, as per Government notification, the case was transferred to CBI, and CBI after due investigation submitted charge sheet on 14.12.2015, which has now been registered as CR Special Case No. 2966/2015 and the case is at the stage of consideration of charge.

(3.) The grievances that has been raised by the petitioner that prior to the FIR of the present case, another case was filed against the petitioner, more or less on identical and similar allegations, being numbered as BIEO PS Case No. 35/2010, under Sections 120 (B)/420 IPC, read with Sections 3/4/5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, and after completion of the investigation, the case has been ended at charge sheet, which has been registered as GR Case No. 9803/2010. It is the case of the petitioner that BIEO case having been instituted at earlier point of time on similar allegations, registration of the subsequent FIR at CID is bad in law and same could have been treated as statement under Section 162 CrPC. Raising the aforesaid grievances, the petitioner filed a petition before the trial Court that the CR (Special) Case No. 2996/2015 is not maintainable and prayed for dropping of the proceeding against him. The CBI objected to the said prayer on the ground that although both the cases seem to be similar and identical, but the complainant, place of occurrence and sections of law mentioned in FIRs are different from each other. The learned trial Court by impugned order dated 13.11.2019 has rejected the prayer, holding that the learned trial Court being at the lowest level in the criminal Court (JMFC) cannot drop its own proceeding and it would be beyond its jurisdiction.