Shri. Pradip Kumar Biswas v. The State

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] *** CRR/59/2024 Shri. Pradip Kumar Biswas Vs The State Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar ... for the petitioner Mr. Sumit Karmakar ... for the State April 9, 2025 [AKB] Item No.7

1. The learned counsels for the petitioner has submitted that there is an error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned order No. 26 dated 21.11.2024 in special case No. 01 of 2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, A&N Islands, Port Blair. The learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the final report furnished by Anti corruption Unit wherein it has been categorically observed by the said expert body that the structural drawing has not been followed at all and due to which possibility of structural failure cannot be ruled out. Learned counsel has also pointed out the following observation of the said expert body:-

"the responsibility due to lack of supervision and non adherence of drawings & specifications, needs to fixed for the delinquents in this regard."

2. In spite of such observation of the expert body, the learned court while rejecting the prayer for discharge of the revisionist has been pleased to hold:

"Hence, I am not convinced with the said submission of Ld. Lawyer of accused persons. The inquiry report of the expert as well as general inquiry report clearly shows that there was structural defects in drawing and engineers who are involved in the said construction did not carefully look into the matter and they were careless for passing the design. They were also not serious at the time of construction of said slab. Hence, it can be said that they had criminal misconduct in this case."

3. According to the learned counsel, the learned judge has made out a third case since in the expert body report there is no such term "structural defects in drawing". If the said anomaly is allowed to continue, the revisionist will suffer irreparable loss and injury.

4. As such the matter should be relegated to the learned Trial Court for fresh application of mind.

5. The learned counsel for the State opposes the submission of the learned counsel of the revisionist. According to him, entire materials on record are to be taken into consideration at the time of disposal of discharge petition and that has been done by the learned Special Judge.

6. I have considered the materials on record. I find that in the report of the expert body there is no whisper about the 'structural defects in drawing' as mentioned in the order of the learned Special Judge. However, as, such observation is of serious magnitude, and further there is an error apparent on the face of the record I think that matter should be relegated to the learned Special Judge for fresh application of his judicial mind in accordance with law.

7. Accordingly the order dated 21.11.2024 is set aside.

8. The learned Special Judge is requested to dispose of the relevant petition under Section 227 of Cr.P.C filed by the accused person afresh without being influenced by any of the observations of this Court.

9. The CRR/59/2024 is allowed on contest. No order as to costs.

10.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, A&N Islands, Port Blair with a request to dispose of the relevant application within two months from the date of receipt of this order.

(Apurba Sinha Ray, J.)