Bank Of Rajasthan vs Keshav Bangur & Another

2. Akhil Bhartiya Karamchari Sangh filed Writ Petition No.2094 of 1999 in the Rajasthan High Court alleging that Bangur Group (Bangurs for short) was responsible for siphoning off funds of the Bank of Rajasthan (BOR for short). As per the order dated 27.9.99, the CBI registered a preliminary enquiry. This was on 25.10.99. CBI submitted Interim Reports between 28.3.00 and 14.7.00. On 11.12.00, CBI submitted its Final Enquiry Report. Vide order dated 27.4.01 the Single Judge directed BOR to file criminal complaints. Against the said order dated 27.4.01, BOR filed special appeal before the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court saying that since CBI had enquired into the whole matter it (i.e. CBI) should alone be directed to continue with the investigation. Vide Order dated 31.5.02, the Division Bench directed CBI to continue with the investigation. Pursuant to the said order dated 31.5.02 CBI registered sixteen cases and filed charge sheets as per details given below:

4. On complaint being filed by Navneet Baheti under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, vide order dated 23.7.01, directed the officer-in-charge of Alipore Police Station to register and investigate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. after treating his complaint as FIR. Accordingly, on 25.7.01 Alipore Police Station registered FIR No.138 of 2001 against Bangurs under Section 120B, 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477A IPC. On 24.9.2001 BOR filed Writ Petition No.14491/2001 in Calcutta High Court challenging the registration of FIR No.138 of 2001. On 25.9.01 Navneet Baheti also filed Writ Petition No.14538/2001 in Calcutta High Court praying for expedition of the investigations by the State Police. In the meantime on 27.9.01 Bangurs filed an affidavit before the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court in Special Appeal No.333 of 2001 in which they contended that since Alipore Police station had registered FIR No.138 of 2001 on 25.7.01, Information Report registered by CBI on 31.5.02 did not constitute an FIR in law. They accordingly prayed for the discontinuance of the process in the hands of CBI.

9. On 27.11.03, Keshav Bangur filed Criminal Revision Application Nos.2545 and 2852 of 2003 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the sixteen FIRs by CBI on the ground that they were second FIRs, the first being FIR No.138/2001 arising from the complaints filed by Navneet Baheti. Vide interim order dated 13.9.04, the Calclutta High Court directed CBI to proceed with the investigations in all sixteen cases, however, it directed that cognizance should not be taken without prior permission from High Court. Similarly, by interim order 1.10.04 the Calcutta High Court stayed further proceedings pending before the Special Judge, CBI, Mumbai.

16. Applying the above test to the present batch of cases, in our view, suffice it to state that since investigation has been done by CBI (common agency) the report submitted by it to this Court, pursuant to our order dated 8.3.07, would also be placed before the Third Special Judge, CBI, Calcutta and it would be for that court to decide whether the aspects covered in FIR No.138/01 stand covered by the report of CBI in the said sixteen FIRs or whether FIR No.138/01 deals with some aspect which is left out by CBI in the said sixteen cases. Accordingly, it would decide whether the sixteen cases cover all aspects including those falling under FIR No.138/01 or whether FIR No.138/01 has some aspects which do not fall in the sixteen cases and, accordingly, it would decide whether to accept the report submitted by CBI before us pursuant to our order dated 8.3.07. Similarly, it would be for that court to decide whether alleged siphoning off took place under same transaction or under separate transactions. Suffice it to state, all the above cases from Calcutta, Mumbai and Delhi shall be tried and disposed of in accordance with law by the Third Special Judge, CBI, Calcutta.

17. In Transfer Petition (Crl.) No.104 of 2004 filed by Keshav Bangur versus CBI, the applicant has prayed for transfer of Special Case No.97 of 2003 filed before the Court of Special Judge, CBI, Greater Mumbai, (City Sessions Court) be transferred to the Third Special Judge, CBI, Calcutta.

18. That, Transfer Petition (Crl.) No.104 of 2004 filed by Keshav Bangur accordingly stands allowed and consequently the Special Case No.97 of 2003 arising out of RC7/E/2002/Mumbai and RC6/E/2002/Mumbai shall stand transferred from the Court of Special Judge, CBI, Mumbai, (City Sessions Court) to the Third Special Judge, CBI, Calcutta.

19. We are informed that six cases filed before the Special Judge, Delhi, have already been transferred to the Third Special Judge, CBI, Calcutta.

CONCLUSION

20. We direct all the aforestated sixteen cases to be tried and disposed of in accordance with law by the Third Special Judge, CBI, Calcutta. We direct the Third Special Judge, CBI, Calcutta, to proceed on day-to-day basis and complete the trial as expeditiously as possible.

21. Consequently, Crl. Appeal No..of 2007 arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos.5566-67 of 2004, Crl. Appeal No..of 2007 arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos.5568-5569 of 2004, Crl. Appeal No..of 2007 arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos.5572- 73 of 2004, T.P. (C) Nos.236-243/2002, T.P. (Crl.) Nos.387- 388/2004 and T.P. (Crl.) No.82/2005 shall stand dismissed as infructuous as they pertain to interim orders passed by the High Court.

22. Accordingly, our above judgment is delivered in Crl. Appeal No..of 2007 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.634 of 2005, Crl. Appeal No..of 2007 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.635 of 2005, Crl. Appeal No..of 2007 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.781 of 2007, which are all disposed of in light of this judgment along with T.P. (Crl.) No.104 of 2004. In view of our aforestated judgment, Writ Petition No.2094 of 1999 filed by the Akhil Bhartiya Karamchari Sangh in the Rajasthan High Court also stands disposed of.

23. Accordingly, the above matters are disposed of with no order as to costs.