Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Jitendra Kumar Tiwari & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 27 September, 2022
Author: Rajasekhar Mantha
Bench: Rajasekhar Mantha
27-09-2022 ct no. 13 Sl.59 sp WPA 21788 of 2022 Jitendra Kumar Tiwari & Anr.
-Versus-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Pratik Dhar, ld. Sr. Adv., Mr. Rajdeep Mazumder, Mr. Srijib Chakraborty, Mr. Mayukh Mukherjee, Mr. A. Bazaz ...for the petitioners Mr. Amitesh Banerjee, ld. Sr. St. Counsel, Ms. Ipsita Banerjee, Mr. S. Adak ...for the State Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharyya, ld. D.S.G. Mr. Arijit Majumder ...for the CBI Mr. Manik Das ...for the Eastern Coalfields Ltd.
The short question that comes for consideration in the instant matter is as to whether there can be two investigations by two different agencies into one crime.
The crime in question is popularly called 'Coal Scam'. Coal worth above thousands of crores of Rupees, belonging to the Eastern Coalfields Limited (ECL), is stated to have been illegally converted, stolen and misappropriated over a period of time. ECL is a Central Government body. The mines in question are located in the State of West Bengal. 2 The ECL has filed a complaint with the Andal Police Station being Andal Police Station Case No. 66 of 2020 dated 18.02.2020 under Section 379 of the IPC and Section 411 of the IPC and Section 30(ii) of the Coal Mines Nationalization Act, 1973.
The Central Bureau of Investigation thereafter commenced a separate investigation in respect of the said scam which, according to them, was on a large scale involving personnel of the Central Government, employees of the ECL and a large number of other influential persons in the State. The illegal coal mining also involved the use of the properties of the railways.
The jurisdiction of the CBI to investigate into the offence, came to be challenged by an accused, before this Court in WPA 10457 of 2020. A Single Bench of this Court upheld the authority of the CBI to investigate into the crime to the extent that it pertains to properties of the Central Government and/or its agencies.
The decision was challenged before a Division Bench of this Court in MAT 158 of 2021 and MAT 167 of 2021. The Division Bench had taken a different view holding that an investigation cannot be bifurcated and it was impractical to allow the CBI to investigate only into the areas that falls within the geographical dominion of the Central Government. 3
The issue is now pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLPs 1620 and 1621 of 2021, inter alia, regarding the authority of the CBI to investigate into the crime, inter alia, in the context of Section 6 of the Delhi Police Special Establishment Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court is hearing a challenge to the judgment of the Division Bench in MATs 158 and 167 of 2021.
The petitioners have been issued notices under Section 160 of the Cr. P.C. a week ago, in aid of the FIR 66 of 2020 (supra) with the Andal Police Station referred to hereinabove.
Mr. Pratik Dhar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that since offences under which the FIR has been registered, prescribe imprisonment of less then 7 years, the petitioners ought to have been issued notice under Section 41 (A) of the Cr. P.C. in terms of the dicta of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC
273. It is also submitted that under the garb of a notice under Section 160 of the Cr. P.C., the petitioners, who have changed their political affiliation from the ruling dispensation, are now sought to be targeted by the CID, West Bengal. It is also argued that there cannot be two investigations into one crime by two separate agencies. 4
Mr. Amitesh Banerjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the CID, West Bengal, has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners. It is submitted that the writ petition is but a rule to avoid the due process of law and the involvement of the petitioners in the crime in question. It is submitted that the investigation into the offence was first commenced by the CID, West Bengal, before the CBI commenced the investigation. It is also submitted that none of the proceedings before this Court (supra) or the Supreme Court SLP (Criminal) No. 1620-1621 of 2021, has the investigation by the CID, West Bengal been interfered. The hands of the CID have not been restrained. His clients, therefore, have every authority in aid of investigation into the pending FIR to issue notice under Section 160 of the Cr. P.C. Mr. Banerjee also claims that the CID, West Bengal has already detained some persons in judicial custody, in aid of the investigation. Anticipatory applications of some other persons is pending before this Court.
This Court has carefully considered the submissions advanced by the parties. It is now a well-settled proposition of law and a necessary offshoot of the principle of double jeopardy that there cannot be two investigations into one crime. The CBI has already filed a large number of charge sheets. A large number of people have been named as accused. 5 The crime in question has caused losses of gargantuan proportions to the ECL and the Central Government.
Indeed, the investigation by the CID, West Bengal has commenced before that of CBI. However, to permit the CID, West Bengal to proceed with the investigation into the pending FIR No. 66 of 2020 with the Andal Police Station would amount to a second parallel and/or de novo investigation into the same crime.
The aforesaid observations of this Court are only prima facie based on the materials produced by the petitioners and those relied upon by the State at the ad interim stage in this writ petition.
In view of the above, this Court is of the prima facie view that allowing the CID, West Bengal to investigate further into the coal scam, would not only amount a second parallel investigation but would also prejudice the investigation already conducted by the CBI. The investigation into the FIR No. 66 of 2020 of Andal Police Station, in so far as the petitioners are concerned, is therefore, stayed.
The pendency of the instant proceedings shall not prevent the CID, West Bengal and other State agencies to pass on to the CBI any evidence or information against any person who, the State feels, may also have been involved in the crime. 6
Needless to mention that the aforesaid order, shall be subject to any order that may be passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid SLP (Criminal) No. 1620-1621 of 2021.
Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed by the State within a period of 3 weeks after puja vacation. Reply, if any, be filed within a period of 2 weeks thereafter.
List the matter as 'Specially Fixed' 5 weeks after the ensuring puja vacation.
All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)