TARPAN KUMAR DAS S/O LT. BASANTA DAS AND OTHERS Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ECONOMIC OFFIENCE WING CBI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Petition, has been jointly filed by Sri Tapan Kumar Das, Sri Madhav Chandra Borah, Smt Lila Boro and Sri Paresh Das, under Section 482 read with Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the order dated 9.10.2014 passed by the learned Court of Special Judge, CBI, Additional Court No. 3, Assam, Guwahati in Special Case No. 1/2011, whereby the learned Court framed charges against the petitioners for the offences under Section 120B IPC read with Section 13 (1) (c) and 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing of the proceedings in Special Case No. 1/201 The case of the petitioners is that they are employees of Police Department. Petitioner No. 1, 2 & 3 are Armed Branch Sub-Inspectors whereas petitioner No. 4 is a Constable. The facts of the case may be precisely put as follows;

(2.) That one Nirmalendu Bhattacharya lodged an FIR with the Officer in Charge, CID Police Station, stating inter alia that the pay and allowance of 10th APBn were fraudulently withdrawn to the tune of Rs 18,89,57,335/- much in excess than the actual dues and that the respondents were co-conspirators in the alleged excess withdrawals. On completion of investigation, a chargesheet was laid against the petitioners for the offences under Section 120B/420/409/477A of Indian Penal Code read with Section 13 (1) (c) and 13 (1) (d) /13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioners further contend that by the impugned order, dated 9.10.2014, the learned trial Court framed charges against the petitioners for the offences under Section 120B IPC read with Section 13 (1) (c) and 13 (1) (d) /13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The common case of the petitioners is that they are no way involved with the commission of offence and the materials collected by the Investigating Agency do not justify the allegations that the petitioners were co-conspirators in the excess drawal of Rs 18,89,57,335/-. The petitioners submit that the learned Court below failed to appreciate that by virtue of their status in service the petitioners were not entitled to prepare salary bills rather; they had only filled the forms of pay bills by copying the figures from the acquittance rolls as provided by the General Branch of 10th APBn.

(3.) I have heard Mr. T Deuri, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel, Mr. SC Keyal, appearing for the respondents/CBI. None appears for the remaining respondents.