Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

Crl. Rev. P. No. 109/2013. Case: Jiban Krishna Acharjee Vs The State of Tripura. Tripura High Court

Document Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Case NumberCrl. Rev. P. No. 109/2013
Party NameJiban Krishna Acharjee Vs The State of Tripura
CounselFor Appellant: A.K. Bhowmik, Sr. Advocate and A. Banik, Advocate and For Respondents: R.C. Debnath, Addl. P.P.
JudgesT. Vaiphei, C.J.
IssueCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 227, 239, 244, 245, 245(1); Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 120B, 409; Prevention Of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13(1)(c)
Judgement DateDecember 14, 2016
CourtTripura High Court

Judgment:

T. Vaiphei, C.J., (At Agartala)

  1. The legality of the order dated 3-10-2013 passed by the learned Special Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur framing the charges against the petitioner U/s. 409/120B IPC and Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is called into question in this revision petition.

  2. The petitioner belongs to Tripura Civil Service Grade-II and was serving as Block Development Officer of Satchand R.D. Block under Sabroom Sub-Division, South Tripura District from 12-10-2009 till 21-5-2010 when he was transferred out for some other posting. On 15-6-2010, the Block Development Officer, Satchand RD Block, who had replaced the petitioner, lodged an FIR with Manu Bazar Police Station against the petitioner and 14 others for misappropriation of Government fund. The case was duly investigated into by the IO of the case, who, in due course of time, submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner and others under Section 409/120B IPC and Section 13(1)(c) of the PC Act. On so forwarded, the learned Special Judge, South Tripura registered Special Case No. 1 of 2013 against the petitioner and other accused. At the time of charge hearing, the petitioner filed an application under Section 227, Cr.P.C. for discharging him on the ground that there was absolutely no evidence against him. The learned Special Judge, however, by the impugned order rejected the application for discharge, which is under challenge now.

  3. The case of the petitioner is that there was an order for supply of ginger rhizomes issued by him to the NERAMAC Ltd., which is a Government of India undertaking, with the approval of Satchand Block Advisory Committee (BAC) headed by the accused No. 2. According to the petitioner, the informant with oblique motive suppressed in the FIR the fact of payment to NERAMAC by him with the approval and direction from the accused No. 2, the then Chairman of BAC. He, however, paid the running bills to NERAMAC Ltd. against the supply of ginger rhizomes on the basis of certificates of receipt in the challans acknowledging the receipt of quantities as per documents issued by the Village Chairpersons and/or Implementing Officers (Panchayat Secretaries of the concerned villages) and no dispute had arisen at that time. Before issue of the cheque for last payment amounting to ` 18,37,500/-, the Chairman of the BAC on or about 16-4-2010 certified that ginger rhizomes were properly supplied to each of the villages and, therefore, directed the payment of all pending bills. It was after receipt of such note that the petitioner issued the cheque for the said amount. Claiming that he is innocent of the charge, this criminal revision petition is filed by the petitioner to set aside the impugned order.

  4. It is the contention of Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, that the informant lodged the FIR on the basis of the allegations contained in the two inquiry reports submitted by one Smt. Tanushree Debbarma, Additional District Magistrate, South Tripura dated 14-5-2010 and dated 29-5-2010, which do not show any material to frame the charges against the petitioner. The learned senior counsel further submits that all the payments including the final payments...

To continue reading

Request your trial