Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Subhas Samanta vs The State Of West Bengal on 24 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Kausik Chanda
C.R.R. No.560 of 2020
SUBHAS SAMANTA
-VERSUS-
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
For the petitioner : Mr. Soumyajit Das Mahapatra, Adv.,
Mr. Somnath Adhikary, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Madhusudan Sur, Adv.
Hearing concluded on : 16.08.2022
Judgment on : 24.08.2022
Kausik Chanda, J.:-
The officer-in-charge, Daspur Police Station, Paschim Medinipur
lodged a suo motu F.I.R. dated April 29, 2019, against three persons
namely, Indrajit Rana, Sumit Paul, and Subhas Samanta. Subhas Samanta
is the petitioner in this case.
2. In the said F.I.R. lodged under Sections 468, 420, and 120B of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 it was alleged that on April 29, 2019, the said
officer-in-charge received information from a credible source that said
Indrajit Rana and Sumit Paul called some local people for distributing some
forged currency notes amongst them. Upon receiving such information, the
said officer-in-charge informed his superiors and conducted a raid at the
dwelling house of Indrajit Rana and found that the aforesaid accused
persons were distributing counterfeit notes of Rs. 2000/-, Rs. 500/- and
Rs. 200/-. The accused persons were caught red-handed. Following the
information from the accused persons, a search was conducted in a car
lying at the premises of Indrajit Rana. Some counterfeit currency notes in
denominations of Rs. 2000/-, Rs. 500/-, and Rs. 200/- along with some
fake certificates of Reserve Bank of India were found inside the car.
3. Following the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted under
Sections 420/468/120B with added Sections 471/489A/489B/489C of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 against Indrajit and Sumit.
4. The investigating officer prayed for the discharge of Subhas Samanta
from the case as no tangible evidence could be found against him.
5. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatal by the order
impugned dated February 3, 2020, held that from the case diary as well as
the seizure list, a prima facie case against Subhas had been made. Learned
Magistrate was of opinion that "not sent up" did not mean to discharge the
accused person. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the
case and issued a process against Subhas.
6. The case diary was produced before this Court. It appears from the
statements of the witnesses and accused persons as recorded by the
investigating officer that Indrajit Rana and Sumit Paul took money from
Subhas in the name of giving job to her wife. Subhas pressurised them to
refund the money since his wife was not given the assured job. Being so
pressurised, Subhas was called by Indrajit and Sumit for the refund of
money in presence of some local people. When Indrajit and Sumit
purported to return the money to Subhas, he suspected that he was given
counterfeit currency notes. Accordingly, an intimation was given to the
police by the local people. The F.I.R. maker arrived at the spot and arrested
Indrajit, Sumit, and Subhas as well.
7. Taking a cue from Indrajit and Sumit, he also conducted a search in
a car and seized some counterfeit currency notes in denominations of
Rs.2000/-, Rs.500/- and Rs.200/-.
8. The seizure list indicates that the car was lying at the premises of
Indrajit.
9. Finding of the learned Magistrate that vital documents were seized in
the name of the wife of Subhas and he was caught red-handed with
"Alamats" are not borne out of the materials collected by the investigating
officer in course of the investigation.
10. I am of the view, that the learned Magistrate has misread the case
diary. The materials available in the case diary do not implicate Subhas in
the alleged offence. The investigation attributed no role to him in the
alleged commission of offence.
11. When this matter was taken up for hearing on August 16, 2022, it
was clarified by the learned Public Prosecutor that no articles were seized
from the possession of the Subhas or from his wife. It was further clarified
that the Reserve Bank Certificates were seized from and procured by Sumit
and Indrajit.
12. The order of issuing process against the Subhas upon taking
cognizance is a result of no application of mind by the learned Magistrate
in the Court below.
13. Accordingly, the order dated February 3, 2020, passed by the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatal, Paschim Medinipur in
connection with GR Case No. 324/2019 is set aside.
14. However, I make it clear that if in course of the trial or by way of
further investigation, any material or evidence is collected against Subhas,
the Court below will be at liberty to proceed against him in accordance with
law.
15. Accordingly, CRR 560 of 2020 is disposed of.
16. Urgent certified website copies of this judgment, if applied for, be
supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all the requisite
formalities.
(Kausik Chanda, J.)
