Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned Senior Counsel for the accused submits that the accused was arrested on 22.11.2023, and since then he has been languishing in jail hazoot. Mr. Bhattacharjee further submits that the at the time of arrest of the accused the I.O. has not served him any Notice as mandated by section 41A Cr.P.C. and as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satinder Kumar Antil vs. CBI & Another reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51. Further, Mr. Bhattacharjee submits that given the nature of allegation leveled against the accused in the Forwarding Report none of the provisions of P.C. Act is applicable against him and that in the year 2013 the accused was not a public servant and that one of the co-accused has already been granted the privilege of bail by this court vide order dated 11.01.2024 Page No.# 3/7 in BA No. 4680 of 2023, and that he is ready to face the trial and therefore, it is contended to allow the petition.

6. On the other hand, Mr. M. Phukan, the learned Public Prosecutor, Assam submits that sections 7/13(1)(a)(b)(d)(2) of the P.C. Act are very much applicable herein this case, as the accused was involved in the conspiracy of bribing a public servant and the punishment prescribed for the same are more than 7 years and therefore I.O. has not given any Notice under section 41A Cr.P.C. and that the I.O. has collected sufficient materials and submitted charge sheet against the accused and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition. Mr. Phukan has referred to a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam reported in (2017) 15 SCC 67, in support of his submission.

9. The allegation against the accused, as revealed by the forwarding report is that he has obtained job of Assam Government by adopting unlawful means in collusion with arrested accused Rakesh Kumar Paul and other officials of APSC. Also it appears that he has used illegal means to increase his marks in CCE-2013 by inserting fake Answer Sheet into his original Answer Sheet.

10. It also appears that the Forwarding Report is silent as regard to Page No.# 4/7 compliance of the provision of section 41A Cr.P.C. before causing arrest of the accused. While the learned Addl. P.P. could not produced the case diary before the court he was asked to obtain necessary instruction as regard the compliance of the provision of aforesaid section and accordingly the learned Addl. P.P., after obtaining instruction, appraised the court that the same was not complied with as the case was registered under sections 7/13(1)(a)(b)(d)(2) of the P.C. Act, also apart from sections under IPC.

11. Now, the issue before this court is whether there is requirement of compliance under section 41 A- Cr.P.C. It is a fact that the case has been registered under section 7/13(1)(a)(b)(d)(2) of the P.C. Act, apart from sections under IPC. The contention of the learned counsel for the accused is that though the punishment prescribed under the aforementioned section of P.C. Act is above 7 years after Amendment of the P.C. Act in the year 2018, yet, the occurrence of the present case took place in the year 2013 while the old provision of the Act was in force where punishment prescribed was up to 7 years, and as such, according to learned counsel for the accused, there is requirement of compliance of the provision of section 41A Cr.P.C.