Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Union Of India vs Cbi & Ors on 23 September, 2019
Author: Jay Sengupta
Bench: Jay Sengupta
1 23.09.2019
Ct.28 RP 106 CRR 2484 of 2019 Union of India Vs. CBI & Ors.
Ms. Chandreyee Alam, Adv.
Mr. Indrajit Dasgupta, Adv.
.... For the Petitioner This is an application challenging the order dated 01.09.2018 passed by the learned Judge, Special (CBI Court) No.2 in R.C. (CBI) Case No.21 of 2016 under Section 420 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. In the present proceeding a complaint was filed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India belonging to the Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises. Pursuant to this the proceeding in question was started. Subsequently Rajesh Kumar Singh, the erstwhile Joint Secretary, through whom the complaint was filed, demitted office. Accordingly, the learned Public Prosecutor filed an application to treat the succeeding Joint Secretary namely, 2 Vishvajit Sahay in place of the erstwhile Joint Secretary as the complainant in the capacity of being a Joint Secretary. On 19.07.2018 the learned Special Court adjourned the matter with an observation that there was no provision for substitution of the complainant under the Code and directed the said Rajesh Kumar Singh to attend the proceeding. On 1.9.2018 the said Rajesh Kumar Singh filed a representation that he had already demitted office and as such, was having no objection to the final report submitted by the investigating agency. In view of this the proceeding was dropped. The learned Special Court failed to appreciate that when a complaint was filed by a particular designated officer on behalf of a concern, then that a particular individual who filed the complaint at that point was not important. The successor in such office should automatically be permitted to represent the authority in question.
Let the petitioner serve a copy of this application upon the opposite parties by speed post with acknowledgement due within one week from date and an affidavit-of-service shall be filed to that effect on the next date of hearing.
Let this matter be listed under the heading "Contested Application" one week after the Puja Vacation. 3
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, may be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties, upon compliance of all formalities.
(JAY SENGUPTA, J.)