Dr. Sabita Biswas v. The State
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] ...
CRR/19/2023 Dr. Sabita Biswas ...Petitioner Vs.
The State ... Respondent Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar ... for the Petitioner Mr. Salim Mohammed ...for the Respondent October 17, 2023 [M.A.Mobin] Item No.1 The instant Criminal Revision has been preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing a criminal proceeding being Special Case No.08 of 2021 pending against the present petitioner before the Court of the Special Judge, Andaman & Nicobar Islands at Port Blair by virtue of FIR No.1 of 2012 dated 30th March, 2012 under Section 13(i)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 418/420/120B/34 IPC wherein the charge sheet being No.2 of 2021 dated 31st March, 2021 was filed against the present petitioner under the above mentioned sections.
The brief fact of the case is that the present petitioner was a member of the Purchase Committee constituted by virtue of an order dated 26th July, 2002 by the Directorate of Health Services, Andaman & Nicobar Islands including a member namely Dr. K. Rajesh, Ayurvedic Physician. The committee was constituted for procurement of Homoeo and Ayurveda medicines.
was lodged against Dr. K. Rajesh contending inter alia that while he was working as a Medical Officer on contract basis in the Ayurveda Hospital under the Director of Health Services and being a member of the Purchase Committee faced preliminary enquiry wherein Anti Corruption Unit found that three major suppliers who participated in the tender viz. M/s. Koruna Nursing Home , M/s. Amritha Health Care and M/s Aswani Agencies were owned by close relatives of Dr. K. Rajesh and these three firms together supplied medicines worth Rs.60 lakhs during the relevant period. Moreover, ANCOFED from which medicines worth Rs.48 lakhs procured were in tern purchase from this M/s. Koruna Nursing Home. It has been further alleged that the medicines were procured at price as much as 15 times higher than the prevailing MRP. The FIR was registered in the year 2012 at Police Station for the allegation of corruption against Shri Dr. Rajesh. The investigation of the police is ended in charge sheet. The charge sheet contained the name of Shri Rajesh along with the present petitioner and others.
It is the case of the present petitioner that present petitioner is a contractual Doctor in Homoeopathy and he was no way connected with the alleged offence. Dr. K. Rajesh was sole responsible and technical member for placing the indent of Ayurveda medicines. Thus the alleged purchase of higher rate was made by virtue of the report of Dr. K. Rajesh and he is a sole member of Ayurveda Specialist in the committee. This is further case of the petitioner that there are no previous antecedent regarding the involvement of the present petitioner in any of the
allegations. At this juncture that charges against the present petitioner are groundless and the criminal proceeding pending against the present petitioner is liable to be quashed. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer against the present petitioner is perfunctory. The investigation would go to show that the present petitioner has no role to play to purchase the Ayurveda medicines. Being a member of the purchase committee, she cannot be arrayed as an accused in the criminal proceeding. It is the further argument of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that though the petitioner is a member of purchase committee which was constituted long back in the year 2002 but the filing of the charge sheet against the present petitioner is without merit.
He further argued that the present petitioner is a faithful Homoeopathy doctor since 20 years and his contract was regularized time to time by order of the authority; the said contract may not be regularized due to the pendency of the instant criminal case. Her service is at stake. At this juncture the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the present petitioner shall cause prejudice. She prayed for necessary order.
Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State submits that though the FIR was registered against Dr. K. Rajesh but after thorough investigation of the police, it appears that the present petitioner was also involved in the alleged offence. There are sufficient materials with the Investigating Agency to frame charge against the present petitioner. He also argued that IO has collected sufficient materials during the course of investigation. The
available witnesses also disclosed involvement of the present petitioner in the alleged offence. Thus at this juncture the instant Criminal case pending against the present petitioner cannot be quashed. He further argued that the present petitioner cannot avoid her collective responsibility as a member of the purchase committee. The petitioner has active role to purchase the Ayurveda medicine also. He again argued that by virtue of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Md. Wazed and another vs. State of UP and Others followed by the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in State of Haryana vs. C.H. Bhajan Lal, at this juncture the criminal proceeding against the present petitioner cannot be quashed.
Heard the learned advocates. Perused the charge sheet. It appears to me that the Investigating Officer has collected some materials and considering the prima facie materials the Investigating Officer has submitted the charge sheet against the present petitioner. The merits of the materials cannot be assessed at this juncture. The value of evidence also cannot be determined by this Revisional Court at the stage of quashing after filing the charge sheet. It further appears to me that the charge is yet to be framed by the learned Trial Court. Considering the entire circumstances and also considering the opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.H. Bhajan Lal as well as other related judgement, I am of specific view that the fishing and roaming enquiry regarding the merits of this case is not possible by this Revisional Court. It is not possible to hold a mini trial. Thus I find
no merit to entertain the Criminal Revision. Considering the same, the Criminal Revision is hereby dismissed.
The learned Trial Court is directed to dispose of the Criminal Proceeding as early as possible. I make it clear that this Revisional Court has not gone into the merits of this case. The petitioner is at liberty to challenge the charge sheet filed by the Investigating Agency at the appropriate stage before the Trial Court. CRR 19 of 2023 is disposed of.
(Subhendu Samanta, J.)