Jitendra Kumar Tiwari & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 7002 Cal

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)