SANTOSH KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two applications have heard together as Sentosh Kumar Bhattacharjee is the petitioner in both the applications and the prayers are identical although couched in different expression. Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2290 of 1977 is for quashing the proceeding against the petitioner before Shri C.S. Lal. Special Judge, C.B.I. (South Bihar), Patna in Special Case No. 1 of 1975. Criminal Revision No. 869 of 1977 is for quashing order of the learned Judge dated the 20th of July, 1977 by which the learned Judge rejected the objection to framing of charge against the petitioner.

(2.) On 17/12/1974 N.K. Singh, Superintendent of police, C.I.A., 'I' New Delhi drew up a first information report on the basis of information received by him and registered a regular case (RC. 12/74) against the petitioner in regard to offence under section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The case was then entrusted to Bholan Das, D.S.P.C.B.I. for investigation. The Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter to be called as 'C.B.I.') investigated into the case and submitted charge-sheet dated 20/8/1976 before the Special Judge, (North Bihar). Besides other matter charge-sheet recital that facts collected during investigation disclosed offence under section 5(1)(e) of the Act. The charge-sheet was laid before the Special Judge C.B.I. (South Bihar), Patna on 20/8/1976 and order was passsd purporting to be an order taking cognizance and issuance of processes against the petitioner. The learned Judge fixed 22/9/1976 for appearance of the accused. The petitioner appeared and was granted bail by the Special Judge on 13/7/1977 the learned Judge heard learned counsel for the parties in regard to framing of charge. The objection on behalf of ths petitioner substantially was that no offence had been committed by the petitioner and, therefore, there was no material for framing of charge. The learned Judge by order dated 20/7/1977 rejected the objections as stated earlier. The petitioner thereafter moved this Court by these two applications.

(3.) At the time the case was instituted against the petitioner, he was employed as Mining Adviser to the Managing Director, Bokaro Steel Project, Bokaro on a basic salary of Rs. 1600 per month. Prior to taking up employment with Bokaro Steel Project, he was working at Bhilai Project since 1/7/1957 as Superintendent Ore Mines and Querries. In the course of investigation the houses of the petitioner at Dhanbad and other places were searched and incriminating documents recovered. His house at Dhanbad was searched on 23/1/1975. He was discharged from service on 12/4/1975. It would also be relevant to state in order to appreciate the contentions on behalf of the petitioner that on 27/2/1958, section 21 of the Indian Penal Code was amended so as to bring employees of public undertaking within the category of public servants another relevant land mark is the date 18/12/1964 when the Parliament enacted section 5(1)(e) in the Prevention of Corruption Act thus creating possession of unaccounted assets disproportionate to known sources of income as substantive offence. In the light of the above facts I shall proceed to consider the submissions urged on behalf of the petitioners.