Gauhati High Court
Sri Ranjit Das vs The Central Bureau Of Investigation And ... on 29 January, 2025
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010245342024
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/60/2025
SRI RANJIT DAS
S/O SRI BARINDRA KR. DAS R/O WARD NO. 3
HOLDING NO. 171
MADHYAPARA BANSBARI P.O. RAJBARI
P.S. JORHAT (SADAR) DIST. JORHAT
ASSAM
IN-785001
PRESENT ADDRESS- GOKUL DHAM APARTMENT
FLAT NO. B- 502
(NEAR GROCER DEPARTMENTAL STORE) PANDUPORT ROAD
VERSUS
THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND 3 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR
GOVT. OF INDIA
6TH FLOOR
LODHI ROAD
NEW DELHI
PIN-110003.
2:THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
ANTI CORRUPTION BRANCH
ASSAM
THROUGH THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND HEAD OF BRANCH
CBI
ACB
BETKUCHI
(OPP. BALAJI TEMPLE)
GUWAHATI
PIN-781035
Page No.# 2/7
3:THE UNDER SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF RAILWAY
GOVT. OF INDIA RAILWAY BOARD
NEW DELHI-1.
4:SAPONTI HAZARIKA
INSPECTOR (ACB GUWAHATI) CBI
ACB
BETKUCHI
(OPP. BALAJI TEMPLE)
GUWAHATI
PIN-781035
------------
Advocate for : MR BIMAL CHETRI
Advocate for : SC
CBI appearing for THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND 3 ORS
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA
ORDER
Date : 29.01.2025
Heard Mr. B. Chetri, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. M.
Haloi, learned Special Public Prosecutor, CBI for the respondent.
2. This interlocutory application under Section 528 of BNSS is filed for stay of
the proceeding in Special Case No. 04/2023 pending before the Court of learned
Special Judge, CBI No. 2, Guwahati.
3. It is submitted by Mr. Chetri, learned counsel for the applicant, that
without any sanction order, the case has been charge-sheeted on 08.11.2023
and the charges is also accordingly framed on 31.07.2024 and the proceeding is
Page No.# 3/7
continuing before the learned Special Judge, CBI No. 2, Guwahati. He further
submitted that there was a submission from the learned Special Public
Prosecutor, CBI that for a retired employee, prosecution sanction is not required.
But, after the amendment of the P.C. Act, the sanction is also required for a
retired employee as per Section 19 of P.C. Act. Further he submitted that the
summons were also issued by the Income Tax Department for Assessment of
the I.T. Returns for the financial year of 2018-19 to 2024-25. Accordingly, he
submitted that the applicant wants to bring all the documents etc. before this
Court by filing his affidavit-in-reply in the connected criminal petition. More so,
as per the materials available on record, disproportionate assets had come to
-2.04% only instead of 47.53%, as mentioned in the F.I.R., which is without
going to the details of his income or without any proper calculation. He further
submitted that there is every chance of succeeding in the connected criminal
petition wherein the prayer for quashment of the impugned F.I.R. and the
Charge-Sheet is prayed for and if the proceeding before the learned Trial Court
below is not stayed at this stage, the purpose of filing the connected criminal
petition will become infructuous and in that case, an innocent person may be
convicted on the basis of the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer.
4. Mr. Chetri further submitted that in spite of furnishing the relevant
documents before the learned Special Judge at the time of framing of charge,
his documents were not considered by the learned Trial Court below and
without giving an opportunity for production of the documents, the charges
were framed against the present petitioner. He further submitted that the
learned Trial Court below cannot ignore the documents and should consider all
the documents at their face value which is even supported by the respondent at
Page No.# 4/7
the time of framing of charge. In that context, he relied on a decision of Hon'ble
Apex Court reported vide 2000 (5) Supreme 139 (State of Madhya
Pradesh Vs. Mohan Lal Soni). Accordingly, he submitted that till the next
date of listing, further proceeding pending before the learned Special Judge, CBI
No. 2, Guwahati may be stayed enabling the present applicant to bring all the
documents before this Court while filing the affidavit-in-reply in the connected
criminal petition.
5. Mr. Haloi, learned Special Public Prosecutor, submitted in this regard that
the sanction has already been obtained before filing the Charge-Sheet as
required after the amendment of the P.C. Act. He further submitted that the
charges may be framed by the Court if prima facie there establishes a case
against an accused on the basis of the materials so far collected by the
Investigating Agency at the time of investigation.
6. In that context, he also relied on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court
reported vide 2004 0 Supreme(Raj) 1147 (State of Orissa Vs. Debendra
nath Padhi) and emphasized on paragraph No. 28 of the judgment, which
reads as under:
"(28). The accused would be entitled to produce materials and documents in proof of
such a plea at the stage of framing of the charge, in case we accept the contention
put forth on behalf of the accused. That has never been the intention of the law well
settled for over one hundred years now. It is in this light that the provision about
hearing the submissions of the accused as postulated by Section 227 is to be
understood. It only means hearing the submissions of the accused on the record of
the case as filed by the prosecution and documents submitted therewith and nothing
more. The expression hearing the submissions of the accused cannot mean
opportunity to file material to be granted to the accused and thereby changing the
Page No.# 5/7
settled law. At the state of framing of charge hearing the submissions of the accused
has to be confined to the material produced by the police."
7. He further submitted that the petitioner will get ample opportunity to
produce all the relevant documents and will also get the opportunity to rebut
the evidence of PWs by way of cross-examining or by producing DWs to
substantiate his plea. But the case under the P.C. Act cannot be stayed as there
is a specific bar under Section 19 of P.C. Act. He accordingly stressed on the
proviso of Section 19(3)(b)(c) of the P.C. Act, wherein it provided that no Court
shall stay the proceedings unless it is satisfied that there is a such error,
omission or irregularity which had resulted in failure of justice.
8. For ready reference, Section 19(3)(b)(c) of the P.C. Act reads as under:
"19. (3)Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of
1974),-
...
(b) no Court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on the ground of any error,
omission or irregularity in the sanction granted by the authority, unless it is
satisfied that such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in a failure of
justice;
(c) no Court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on any other ground and no
Court shall exercise the powers of revision in relation to any interlocutory order
passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings."
9. Mr. Haloi accordingly relied on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court
reported vide (2018) 16 SCC 299 (Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency
Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation), and basically
emphasized on paragraph Nos. 22, 28 & 30 of the judgment, wherein it is
Page No.# 6/7
observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the stay can be granted only when
there is an error, omission or irregularity in the sanction granted for the
prosecution and in no other situation that is contemplated for grant of stay
proceeding under the P.C. Act on any other ground whatsoever even if there is
failure of justice. Paragraph Nos. 28 & 30 of the Judgment read as under:
"28. It is well accepted that delay in a criminal trial, particularly in the PC Act cases,
has deleterious effect on the administration of justice in which the society has a vital
interest. Delay in trials affects the faith in Rule of Law and efficacy of the legal system.
It affects social welfare and development. Even in civil or tax cases it has been laid
down that power to grant stay has to be exercised with restraint. Mere prima facie
case is not enough. Party seeking stay must be put to terms and stay should not be
incentive to delay. The order granting stay must show application of mind. The power
to grant stay is coupled with accountability, Siliguri Municipality vs. Amalendu
Das (1984) 2 SCC 436 para 4; Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar,
West Bengal vs. Dunlop India Ltd. and Ors. (1985) 1 SCC 260 para 5; Union Territory
of Pondicherry and Ors. vs. P.V. Suresh and Ors. (1994) 2 SCC 70 para 15; and State
of West Bengal and Ors. vs. Calcutta Hardware Stores and Ors. (1986) 2 SCC 203 para
5.
30. Wherever stay is granted, a speaking order must be passed showing that the case
was of exceptional nature and delay on account of stay will not prejudice the interest
of speedy trial in a corruption case. Once stay is granted, proceedings should not be
adjourned and concluded within two-three months."
10. Further Mr. Haloi submitted that as per Section 19(4), it speaks that " in
determining under sub-section (3) whether the absence of, or any error,
omission or irregularity in, such sanction has occasioned or resulted in a failure
of justice, the Court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could
and should have been raised at any earlier stage in the proceedings. The error
includes competency of the authority to grant sanction." But, here in the instant
case, the competent authority had passed the sanction order after perusal and
verifying all the relevant documents and materials. Thus, he submitted that
Page No.# 7/7
there is no abuse of the process of Court to stay the further proceeding, as
prayed by the applicant.
11. Mr. Chetri, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted in this context that
co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl. Petn. No. 1203/2024 had stayed the
proceeding vide order dated 16.12.2024 in similarly situated case.
12. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels for both
sides, it is seen that the prayer for stay of the proceeding before the learned
Special Judge is basically on the ground that the sanction was not obtained by
the Investigating Officer and that too there was no proper evaluation of the
statement and thus, it is stated that there was only a disproportionate assets of
-2.04% which is considered as 47.53% in the F.I.R. But there is no detail
mention in the petition as to on what ground the sanction cannot be considered
and that what kind of error, omission or irregularity was there while granting the
sanction for prosecution which will be resulted in failure of justice. Accordingly, I
do not find it appropriate to pass any order on stay at this stage. However, both
the parties are hereby directed to furnish the necessary documents and other
relevant documents on the next date of listing and the matter may be heard
afresh to consider the prayer for stay of the proceeding.
13. Accordingly, let the matter be listed on 17.02.2025.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
