Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Enforcement Directorate vs Partha Chatterjee on 25 July, 2022
25.07.2022
Court No.42
Item No.1
Suman
CRR 2665 of 2022
With
CRAN 1 of 2022
Enforcement Directorate
Vs.
Partha Chatterjee
Mr. Suvyaprakash V. Raju, Ld. ASG
Mr. Phiroze Edulji, Advocate
Ms. Anamika Pandey, Advocate
Ms. Amrita Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Ghanshyam Pandey, Advocate
Ms. Sneha Singh, Advocate
.......For the petitioner
Mr. Debashish Roy, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee, Advocate
Mr. Soumen Mohanty, Advocate
Mr. Ayan Poddar, Advocate
Mr. Piyush Kumar Ray, Advocate.
Mr. Agnish Basu, Advocate.
.......For the Opposite Party
Leave is granted to the learned Advocate for the
opposite party to move the instant application as
unlisted matter.
The instant application is filed praying for
appropriate order/orders in connection with CRR 2665
of 2022 which has already been disposed of by this
Court on 24th July, 2022.
It is submitted by Mr. Debashish Roy, learned
Advocate for the opposite party that this Court in its
judgment/order dated 24th July, 2022 at page 2
stated that the opposite party is an FIR named
accused in Case No.RC0102022A0002 dated 5th April,
2022. However, the opposite party is not an FIR
named accused in the above mentioned case. In
support of his contention, he refers to a copy of the
First Information Report of the above mentioned
case.
I have perused the copy of the FIR filed by the
CBI resulting in institution of RC0102022A0002 dated
5th April, 2022.
Mr. Suvyaprakash V. Raju, learned Additional
Solicitor General admits that the opposite party is not
an FIR named accused in the said case.
Therefore, it is recorded that the opposite party is
not an FIR named accused in the above numbered
case instituted by the CBI, Anti-Corruption Branch,
Kolkata.
Mr. Roy, learned Advocate for the opposite party
next draws my attention to the second paragraph of
page 8 of the said judgment dated 24th July, 2022
where this Court recorded on perusal of the case
diary that the learned Advocate for the opposite party
was present during raid conducted by the E.D. in the
house of the accused and he talked to the accused.
According to Mr. Roy the said observation was
wrongly recorded and the observation may be
expunged.
It is made clear that this Court recorded the
above stated observation on perusal of the case
diary. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason
to allow the prayer made on behalf of the opposite
party in this regard.
It is further submitted by Mr. Roy that this Court
made the following observation in the last paragraph
of page 9 of the judgment dated 24th July, 2022. The
relevant paragraph runs thus:-
"Under such background and considering the fact
that the accused is the senior most Cabinet
Minister in the State of West Bengal having
immense power and position, it would not be
impossible for the accused with the aide of other
political executives to take shelter under the garb
of serious illness and medical treatment to evade
interrogation. If this happens, the Lady Justice
will be cursed by the tears of hundreds and
thousands of deserving candidates whose future
was sacrificed in lieu of money."
According to Mr. Roy if this observation is allowed
to be retained, this will hamper adversely the fate of
the application for bail of the accused.
This Court is not in a position to entertain the
prayer made on behalf of the opposite party in this
regard in view of the specific provision under Section
362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
This Court made the above observation in the
judgment/order dated 24th July, 2022 taking into
consideration all the facts and circumstances of the
case. Therefore, there is no reason to modify or
change the above observation made by this Court.
With the following order the application filed on
behalf of the opposite party is disposed of.
Before I part with, I like to record that in
paragraph 7 of the instant application the
applicant/opposite party averred that the Court did
not give any opportunity to the opposite party to file
affidavit-in-opposition. It is specifically recorded that
no such prayer was made on behalf of the opposite
party at the time of hearing of the revisional
application on 24th July, 2022. The learned Advocate
for the opposite party took part in the hearing of the
revisional application and all his submission was
recorded in the judgment/order dated 24th July, 2022.
Thus, it is recorded that the averment made in
paragraph 7 of the instant application filed by the
applicant/opposite party is blatantly false.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)
