Research › Browse › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

1991 DIGILAW 52 (CAL)

Tarapada Dey v. State

1991-02-05

JYOTIRINDRA NATH HORE

body1991
ORDER The present case arises out of an application under s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceeding being Special Case no. 8 of 1976 under ss.409/465/471 read with s.120B Indian Penal Code pending before the Special Court of Burdwan, 2. Upon a complaint made by Sri Indu Bhusan Sen, Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Katwa on 15.1.72, a case under ss.420/468/467/120B, Indian Penal Code and s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was registered against the petitioner Tarapada Dey along with others. The prosecution case is that the petitioner who is the Sub-Divisional Controller, Food and Supply Katwa, Burdwan issued in collusion and connivance with other accused persons a false permit in the name of Sri Sanat Kumar Ghosh of Beninagar appointing him as the M.R. Dealer of both the said places had surrendered their dealership without application from the said Sanat Kumar Ghosh. The wheat and rice were lifted on the basis of the false permit by forging the signature of Sanat Knmar Ghosh. 3. On 19 1.72 the petitioner surrendered in the court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate at Katwa, Burdwan and was released on bail. As the investigation was not completed even within two years, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate rejected the prayer for further time on 15.1.74 and discharged the accused persons. The prosecution then moved the High Court in revision against the said order of discharge which was set aside by this court. Thereafter on 18 1.76 the chargesheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer an the case was sent to the Special Court, Burdwan on 20.5 76 and 27.5.76 was fixed for appearance of the accused person sand for further orders. On 275.76 the court fixed 19.8.76 for examination of the prosecution witnesses. Thereafter the prosecution took several adjournments and at last the trial was started on 11.5.79. On 9.2.85 charge was framed against the petitioners and others under ss. 465/471/409 read with s. l20B, Indian Penal Code. 4 Mr. Sengupta, learned Advocate for the petitioner has firstly contended that the materials on record do not prima facie disclose the commission of offence by the petitioner under ss. 467/468/409 read with 120B or any other offence at all. The second contention of Mr. 465/471/409 read with s. l20B, Indian Penal Code. 4 Mr. Sengupta, learned Advocate for the petitioner has firstly contended that the materials on record do not prima facie disclose the commission of offence by the petitioner under ss. 467/468/409 read with 120B or any other offence at all. The second contention of Mr. Sengupta is that the proceeding against the petitioner has been dragging on for more than 13 years causing untold sufferings and hardships to the petitioner and further continuation of the proceeding would be an abuse of the process of the court particularly when there is no materials in support of the charges against the petitioner and so for ends of justice the charges framed against the petitioner should be set aside and the impugned proceeding against the petitioner should be quashed. 5 It is well settled that the standard test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise is not exactly to be applied at the stage of framing charges. At this stage, even a very strong suspicion founded upon• the material before the Court which leads it to form presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged, may justify the framing of charges against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence (vide Superintendent Remembrancer & Legal Affairs v Anil Kumar Bhunja & Ors AIR 1980 SC 55. In Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Panjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bhujja & Ors, AIR 1990 SC 1962 , it has been held that at the stage of framing the charge, the court is required to evaluate material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose in existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The Court may for this limited purposes, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution Slates as gospel truth, even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. In this case the charges have been framed against the petitioner upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution before charge. In this case the charges have been framed against the petitioner upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution before charge. I have been led through the relevant evidence and upon a consideration of the same I am of the opinion that the evidence does not disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offences. The case of the present petitioner rests on a different footing from that of other accused persons. The procedure followed during the tenure of office of the present petitioner regarding receipt of indent and issue of permits as it appears from the evidence of PW4 was that M. R. Dealers used to submit indents with the Area Inspector who was to verify and recommend for issue of permit, The Area Inspector used to return the indents with their recommendation to The dealers who thereafter submitted the same to the office. These were then placed before the Sub-Divisional Controller who was to pass carders for issue of permits. It is clear, therefore, that the present petitioner being the Sub- Divisional Controller was to issue permits upon the recommendation of the Area Inspector who verified the indents. He was not him self responsible for verification and correctness of the indents. He had to issue permits upon the report and recommendation of the Area Inspector. The evidence shows that the goods under the permit were lifted in the name of PW 17, Sanat Kumr Ghosh. The evidence of PW 17 is that he never took delivery of the ration commodities and did not sign on the books of accounts of the Civil Supplies The strock register allotment book and cash memo etc of PW 17 have not been seized and the facile explanation of PW 17 is that these had-been lost. The disputed signature purporting to be that of PW 17 in the Books of Accounts of the Civil Supplies was not specifically denied by PW 17 and the handwriting expert could not give any opinion as to whether the said disputed signatures were those of PWl7 inasmuch as the disputed and specimen signatures were written in different languages. Even if the evidence of PW 17 is taken on face value this would this would not necessarily implicate the present petitioner. The only part played by the petitioner was issue of the permit. Even if the evidence of PW 17 is taken on face value this would this would not necessarily implicate the present petitioner. The only part played by the petitioner was issue of the permit. As stated earlier, the permit was issued upon the report and recommendation of the Area Inspector and in the absence of any other evidence it cannot be said that the present petitioner was responsible for the falsity of the report and that he entred into a conspiracy to lift the commodities under the permit in the name of a fictitious person and misappropriated the same by forging the signatures of PW17. The mere issue of permit in course of the usual procedure on the report and recommendation of the Area Inspector without anything more does not even raise a reasonable suspicion that the petitioner was also a party to the conspirary, forgery, criminal breach of trust ere. The proceeding against the petitioner has been dragged on for about 13 years before the filing of this revisional application in 1985 which has caused untold sufferings and harassment to the petitioner. As already stated eralier that the evidence adduced by the prosecution before charge does not disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. Further continuation of the proceeding against him would be an abuse of the process of court and the impugned proceeding is liable to be quashed for ends of justice. . 6. In the result, the revisional application is allowed. The charges framed against the petitioner by Order No. 89 dated 9. 2. 85 under Sections 465/471/409 read with Section 120B Indian Penal Code are hereby set aside and the impugned proceeding against the petitioner is quashed. Application allowed