No evidence was collected by the CBI to prove the above ingredients against the A-2.In considering the entire circumstances I am of view that the charge labelled against the A-2 by the CBI can not prove her guilt in trial: Calcutta High Court

The above-mentioned was opined by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Shri Sushanta Dasgupta and Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation, C.R.R. No. – 341 of 2018 before the Honourable Justice Shubendu Samanta on 23rd December 2022. 


An application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure brought by the petitioner in an effort to have a special case proceeding before the Learned 3d Special Court in Calcutta quashed and to overturn an order issued on October 12, 2017, by the Special Judge, which denied the petitioner’s request for discharge.

The short version of the case’s facts is that the Central Bureau of Investigation for the opposing party filed an FIR on February 24, 2012, based on a letter of complaint from a CBI/ACB/Calcutta inspector who claimed, among other things, that petitioner No. 1 had accumulated significant assets in his name and the names of his family members during the check period that was out of proportion to his known source of income.

After conducting an investigation, the CBI filed a charge sheet alleging that Accused No. 1 had violated Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988 and Accused No. 2 had violated Sections 109 IPC and Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988.

The petitioners then submitted a request for discharge under Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the Special Judge. The petitioner’s prayer was not answered. this adjustment was made.


In K. Ponnuswamy [(2001 6 SCC 674)] case, the Honorable Supreme Court maintained the Special Court’s conviction of government employee A-1, which the High Court had previously upheld, and did not uphold the convictions of A-1’s wife or A-1’s daughter, who are A-2 and A-3, respectively. The assets registered in the names of A-2 and A-3 in the aforementioned case, according to the Honorable Apex Court, can very well be regarded as belonging to A-1 because the accused have not provided sufficient evidence to support their Benami claim.

The verb “instigate” is to urge, provoke, or urge someone to take severe or undesirable action. Mens rea must consequently be present in addition to instigation. A-2 does not have a separate source of income. An unemployed wife typically follows a natural route of dependence on her employed husband’s wishes. The A-1 and A-2 are in a fiduciary relationship. A-1 is in a position and equipped to suppress A-2’s will. As a result, A-2 is unable to prevent A-1 from participating in the Bank Account or jointly acquiring the KVP and other certificates. In this instance, A-2’s involvement with A-1 cannot ipso facto establish their culpability.

The CBI did not gather any evidence to support the assertions made above against the A-2. I believe that the accusation brought by the CBI against the A-2 cannot establish her guilt at trial after taking into account all of the relevant facts.

In conclusion, it is safe to conclude that the learned special judge’s contested order regarding A-2 is improper. The charge against the A-2 is unfounded, and she is entitled to a discharge, according to the facts, circumstances, and evidence in the record.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into the category of the best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”


Click here to read the judgement


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *