Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Subhash Chandra Barjatya vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 1 February, 2018
Author: Debi Prosad Dey
Bench: Debi Prosad Dey
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Debi Prosad Dey
CRR No. 124 of 2018
Subhash Chandra Barjatya...................Petitioner/Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti
Corruption.....Respondent/Opposite party
For the Appellant/ : Mr. Pradip Ghosh,
Petitioner : Mr. S. Banerjee
: Mr. Ayan Bhattacharya,
: Mr. D. K. Jain
For the Opposite : Mr. Asraf Ali
Party/ Respondent
Heard on : 16.01.2018, 30.01.2018
Judgment on : 01.02.2018
Debi Prosad Dey, J. :-
Challenge in this revisional application is the order dated 2nd November, 2017 passed by learned Judge Central Bureau of Investigation Court (Special), Alipore, South 24 Parganas in special case no. 3/2012 whereby and where under learned Judge has specially observed that the application for discharge has been "not pressed" by the petitioner and thereafter framed charge against all the accused persons and fixed schedule for examination of the witnesses.
Learned senior Counsel Mr. Ghosh appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that an application for discharge was filed by the present petitioner but the said application was not taken up for consideration and learned trial Judge has erroneously recorded that such application was 'not pressed' by the present petitioner. It is further submitted that in fact another accused 'not pressed' his application for discharge and presumably being misguided, learned trial Judge has recorded that the application of the present petitioner was 'not pressed'. Learned senior Counsel further contended that an opportunity of hearing should be given to the present petitioner so that the petitioner may canvass his legitimate claim of being discharged from the case under reference. Mr. Ghosh further contended that denial of any such opportunity amounts to denial of justice to the present petitioner who has been prevented from canvassing his case of the discharge from the case under reference.
Learned Advocate Mr. Asraf Ali appearing on behalf of the Central Bureau of Investigation contended that the order dated 2nd November, 2017 clearly revealed that all the accused persons were present along with the learned Counsels and learned trial Judge after hearing of the learned Counsels framed charge against all the accused persons including the present petitioner. It is submitted that contents of charge were read over and explained to all the accused persons present in Court in presence of their learned Counsel to which they pleaded 'not guilty' and claimed to be tried. Mr. Ali further contended that in fact the present petitioner never agitated about his application of discharge in the trial Court and thereby the petitioner has forfeited his right to be heard on the point of discharge.
The case of the prosecution in brief is that two Advocates along with the presiding officer of Income Tax Tribunal were roped in a case under Section 7/12/13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. According to Mr. Ghosh the present petitioner is allegedly the carrier of money. The case of the prosecution is that the present petitioner along with the other accused persons conspired and paid money to the presiding officer of the Income Tax Tribunal in order to obtain favourable order in favour of some claimants of such Advocates. Mr. Ghosh thus submitted that the Advocates have been discharged from the case by learned trial Court and therefore, the present petitioner has had every chance of being discharged from the case under reference. Mr. Ali on the other hand contended that the Central Bureau of Investigation has preferred revisional application challenging the said order of discharge and sufficient materials have been collected against the present petitioner so as to frame charge against him.
The order dated 2nd November, 2017 clearly reveals that all the accused persons including the present petitioner were present in Court and learned trial Judge after hearing learned Counsels for the parties had framed charge against all the accused persons. Therefore, it is, crystal clear that learned Counsel for the present petitioner was present and learned Counsel did not raise anything about the application for discharge pending for disposal. That goes to show that in fact the learned Counsel for the petitioner did not press the said application for discharge and that is why the matter was taken up for consideration of charge by learned trial Court. The order was passed on 2nd November, 2017. The certified copy of such order was obtained on 15th November, 2017. The instant application has been filed on 16th January, 2018 challenging the said order. That goes to show that the petitioner never intended to get his application heard on the date of framing of charge and thereby the petitioner has forfeited his right to get the said application heard again on merit by learned trial Court. Mere assertion of prejudice is not sufficient to hold that the petitioner has been prejudiced. The petitioner did not even agitate about his application for discharge at the time of hearing of the charge and thereby the petitioner has virtually abandoned his petition for discharge. In that view of this case I do not find any merit in the instant revisional application. The petitioner had filed an application before the learned trial Court for consideration of such application for discharge about one and half month after framing of such charge by learned trial Court. That also goes to show that the petitioner has abandoned his plea of discharge and subsequently with the help of some fertile legal brain he had filed such application only with the aim to forestall the trial of the case. In that view of this case I do not find any merit in the instant revisional application. The revisional application being devoid of merit stands rejected.
However any of the observation made in the forgoing paragraphs shall have no bearing on the merit of the case and learned trial Judge shall dispose of the case in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observation made in the forgoing paragraphs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible (Debi Prosad Dey, J.)