IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA AT NEW DELHI

(CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION)

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. OF 2023
[Arising out of judgement and order of the High court of Calcutta at west
bengal dated 21.08.2023 passed in W.P.A (P) 428 OF 2023]

IN THE MATTER OF:

1. Prithvijoy Das, son of Sri Jaydeb Das,
having address at EC - 185, Salt Lake
City, Sector 1, Kolkata, West Bengal,
Pin – 700064.

2. Arpita Sardar, wife of Sri Sandeep

Sardar, having address at CB 50, Sector
1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata, West Bengal,
Pin – 700064.

…………Petitioners

-Versus-

1. Union of India through Ministry of

Home Affairs through its Secretary,
having its office at North Block, Cabinet
Secretariat, Raisina Hill, New Delhi –
110001;

2. Secretary of Ministry of Home Affairs,

having its office at North Block, Cabinet
Secretariat, Raisina Hill, New Delhi –
110001
...... State Respondents

3. Ganesh Chandra Mondal, MLA, Kultali

Legislative Assembly Constituency
(Constituency No. 129), having address
at Vill – Kundakhali, P.O. & P.S. –
Kultali, 24 PGS (South), Pin – 743338.
 .......Private Respondent

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
TO
The Hon’ble chief justice of India and
His companion justices of
The supreme court of India.

The humble petition of the above-named petitioner most respectfully

SHOWETH:

1. That the present special leave petition (criminal) is filed against

order dated 21.08.2023 of the High court of Calcutta at West
Bengal in W.P.A (P) 428 OF 2023.On 18.05.2023 The petitioner no.
1 has made a complaint before the concerned central agencies
including the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I) &
Enforcement Directorate (E.D.)

2. That the present petition raises an important question of law for

consideration before this Hon’ble court.

3. GROUNDS OF APPEAL
i) Hon'ble High Court Calcutta, in the open Court suggested the
Petitioner to lodge Complaint case against the accused under
the purview of Prevention of Corruption Act, which is not
practical.
ii) Accused being an MLA and belonging to the present rulling
party in West Bengal is highly influential, hence the State police
authorities are reluctant to receive complaint against him under
the PC Act.

iii) Under PC Act, disproportionate of assets is to be investigated by

ED, CBI and /or Income Tax Department and the Special Court
has no jurisdiction to direct these central agencies to conduct
investigation against the accused.

As we proceed to deal with the grounds for arriving at such a

conclusion, it may be apposite to refer to the relevant law in this
regard which is the legal basis for our conclusion.

In Disha v state of Gujrat & Ors (2011) That this court has
transferred the matter to CBI or any other special agency only
when the courts was satisfied that the accused had been very
powerful and influential person or state authorities like high
police officials were involved and the investigation had not
proceeded with proper direction or it had been biased. In such
a case, in order to do complete justice and having complete
believe that it would lend the final outcome of the
investigation, credibility, such direction have been issued.

Dhanraj N. Asawani Versus Amarjeet singh Mohinder singh Basi and

Others
13. The respondents have submitted that the institution of the FIR by the
appellant, which is based on the audit report, is in contravention of
Section 81(5B). It is contended that only the auditor or the Registrar is
empowered to file an FIR in terms of Section 81(5B). The substance of
the respondents' argument is that the procedure laid down under
Section 81(5B) is a special procedure, and will prevail over Section 154 of
the CrPC. To fortify their submission, the respondents have relied on the
decisions of this Court in Jeewan Kumar Raut v. CBI and Jamiruddin
Ansari v. CBI.
16. Section 4(2) lays down that the provisions of the CrPC shall apply to
all offences under any other law apart from the IPC. However, the
application of the CrPC will be excluded only where a special law
prescribes special procedures to deal with the investigation, inquiry, or
the trial of the special offence. For instance, in Mirza Iqbal Hussain v.
State of Uttar Pradesh, this Court was called upon to determine whether
the trial court had jurisdiction to pass an order of confiscation under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. This Court held that the provisions
of the CrPC would apply in full force because the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1947 did not provide for confiscation or prescribed any
mode by which an order of confiscation could be made. Therefore, it
was held that a court trying an offence under the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1947 was empowered to pass an order of confiscation in
view of Section 452 of the CrPC. In determining whether a special
procedure will override the general procedure laid down under the CrPC,
the courts have to ascertain whether the special law excludes, either
specifically or by necessary implication, the application of the provisions
of the CrPC.

In A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak, a Constitution Bench of this

Court held that the concept of locus standi of the complainant is not
recognized in the criminal jurisprudence, except in situations where the
statute creating an offence provides for the eligibility of the
complainant. The Court observed that the right to initiate criminal
proceedings cannot be whittled down because punishing an offender is
in the interests of the society: “This general principle of nearly universal
application is founded on a policy that an offence i.e. an act or omission
made punishable by any law for the time being in force [See Section 2(n)
CrPC] is not merely an offence committed in relation to the person who
suffers harm but is also an offence against society. The society for its
orderly and peaceful development is interested in the punishment of the
offender. Therefore, prosecution for serious offences is undertaken in
the name of the State representing the people which would exclude any
element of private vendetta or vengeance. If such is the public policy
underlying penal statutes, who brings an act or omission made
punishable by law to the notice of the authority competent to deal with
it, is immaterial and irrelevant unless the statute indicates to the
 contrary. Punishment of the offender in the interest of the society being
one of the objects behind penal statutes enacted for larger good of the
society, right to initiate proceedings cannot be whittled down,
circumscribed or fettered by putting it into a strait-jacket formula of
locus standi unknown to criminal jurisprudence, save and except specific
statutory exception.”

A. SREENIVASA REDDY VERSUS RAKESH SHARMA & ANR.(2023)

26. In view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and in view of
the above said discussion, coming to the present crime as there are
serious and specific allegations, this Court is not inclined to quash the
proceedings against the petitioner herein, A.2 in C.C.No.17 of 2015
pending on the file of the Special Judge for CBI Cases at Hyderabad.

It must be mentioned right at the outset that in a latest, landmark and extremely laudable
judgment titled Municipal Council Neemuch vs Mahadeo Real Estate And Ors in Civil
Appeal No. 7319-7320 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 172-173 of 2019) which
was delivered on September 17, 2019 by a three Judge Bench of Supreme Court
comprising of Justice BR Gavai who authored the judgment for himself, Justice Arun
Mishra and Justice MR Shah has sought to send a very loud, clear and categorical
message to all the High Courts that an interference by the High Court would be
warranted only when the decision impugned is vitiated by an apparent error of law.

Central Bureau Of Investigation vs State Of Rajasthan And Another on 19

January, 2001
As the present discussion is restricted to the question whether a magistrate can direct
the CBI to conduct investigation in exercise of his powers under Section 156(3) of the
Code it is unnecessary for us to travel beyond the scope of that issue. We, therefore,
reiterate that the magisterial power cannot be stretched under the said sub-section
beyond directing the officer in charge of a police station to conduct the investigation.

To conclude with, in this case, it is held that a magistrate in exercise of

his powers cannot direct the Central Bureau of Investigation to
conduct investigation into any offence. If the power of a magistrate to
direct investigation by the CBI in non-cognizable cases cannot be
traced as mentioned in the above provisions, it is not possible to
smidgen such power in any other provision of the Code.
4. SYNOPSYS

That there is an extreme urgency in moving the Special leave

Petition in the pretext that the private respondent being a public
servant has made huge properties in the last 2 years by misusing
his chair that tantamount to disproportionate of assets. The
present MLA of 129, LAC, West Bengal i.e. the private respondent,
has purchased/obtained several properties within the last two
years under the tenure of his holding public office (MLA) and the
aggregate valuation of the same is more than Rupees 100 Crores.
The affidavit/statement which contains the detailed information of
property placed by private respondent at the time of election was
much lesser than his present properties and assets which gives
rise to several questions and indicates rampant corruption being
committed in the last couple of years.

Several Complaints were made before the concerned central

agencies including the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I) &
Enforcement Directorate (E.D.) by the petitioners but no step has
been taken. Hence, the petitioners preferred to approach this
Hon’ble Court to intervene in this matter in order to unearth the
white-collar crimes committed in the guise of holding public office.

5. POINTS OF LAW

I. Whether disproportionate of assets of a public servant comes

under the purview of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?

II. Whether the Central Bureau of Investigation, Enforcement

Directorate and the Income Tax have the jurisdiction to investigate
crimes under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?

6. That the petitioner has not filed any other special leave petition
against the impugned order dated 21.08.2023 before the Hon’ble
supreme court of India.

7. PRAYER
 In the premises the petitioner herein prays that this hon’ble
court may graciously be pleased to:
i) Grant special leave to appeal to the petitioner against
judgement and order dated 21.08.2023 of the high court of
Calcutta at West Bengal, In W.P.A (A) 428 of 2023 titled
“Prithvijoy Das & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.
ii) Pass any other order which this Hon’ble court may deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of
the petitioner.