Dismissed

Sumitra S. Banerjee v. CBI Acb, Mumbai

Bombay HC23 Nov 2012APPLN/1279/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court rejected a transfer application seeking to move a special case from Mumbai to Thane. It held that the crucial offence of accepting a bribe occurred in Mumbai on the day the FIR was registered, negating the territorial link to Thane.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 476 CrPC for transfer of Special Case No.6 of 2011 from Mumbai to Thane is rejected with observations.

Sumitra S. Banerjee Vs CBI Acb, Mumbai — Bombay HC (2012) — LawSathi Research

appln1279-12.sxw

1/3

Pvr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1279 OF 2012

¶7

Mrs.Sumitra S.Banerjee. …Applicant versus 1.CBI,ACB, MUMBAI & Anr. ...Respondents

¶8

Mr.A.P.Mundargi, for Applicant.

¶9

Mr.H.S.Venegaonkar, for Respondent no.1.

¶10

Mr.D.R.More, APP for State.

¶11

CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.

¶12

DATED : 23^rd November, 2012

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

Heard the learned Senior Counsel for Applicant and the learned Counsel for CBI and ACB. Transfer of Special Case no.6 of 2011 pending before the learned Special Judge CBI Sessions Court, Mumbai, to the Court of learned Special Judge, CBI, Sessions Court at Thane, is sought.

¶15

During the course of submissions, Mr.Mundergi, learned Senior Counsel, on instructions, informs that though the application is by accused no.1 Smt.Sumitra, Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, however, the other two accused i.e. accused no.2 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,

appln1279-12.sxw

2/3

Pvr

husband and Accused no.3 have also no objection if this Court transfers the special case to the Court of Thane.

¶20

The pivotal point raised by the learned Senior Counsel is, the demand of illegal gratification by public servant was made at Thane, part of the same in the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- each total Rs.20,00,000/- was released at Thane and only balance was allegedly made in the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court at Mumbai, as the amount was recovered in a trap in the vicinity at Vikhroli. He says, one of the co-accused had moved pre-arrest bail application at the Sessions Court at Thane, which was entertained and copy of FIR was also sent to Thane Court initially. Hence, the matter, according to him, needs to be transferred to the Court at Thane.

¶21

The canvass projected of receiving initial amount of Rs.10 lakhs on two occasions may be correct, however, it is dated 25.3.2010 and 29.3.2010 when there was no FIR lodged against the accused applicants. The complaint by the complainant to the Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, Mumbai, at Colaba, Mumbai was dated 15.4.2010. Naturally, no offence was registered prior thereto against the accused applicants to accept contention that there was already a demand and offence was committed.

¶22

The copy of order/noting dated 17.4.2010 of the learned Special

appln1279-12.sxw

3/3

Pvr

Judge Mumbai, illustrates, the accused was produced before him at 5.35 p.m. He had an occasion to peruse the remand application, FIR, case diary and post trap panchanama. In the trap which was laid on16.4.2010 at about 7 p.m., husband of accused no.1 Subroto Banerjee was nabbed while accepting bribe amount of Rs.1.50 crores for and on behalf of his wife, which conversation has been recorded by the investigating officer.

¶27

Reference of filing anticipatory bail application by co-accused is correct, however, it has different shade. As said co-accused was father and wife of the Commissioner of Income Tax, CBI had no intention to detain or arrest them, it has recorded no objection as CBI did not desire to arrest them. Consequently, the application moved for pre-arrest bail was not pressed. In this situation, it cannot be said that there was an application moved before the Court at Thane and it was entertained.

¶28

The above text of the events illustrates, the offence has taken place after FIR dated 15.4.2010, on 16.4.2010 within the vicinity of Special Judge, Sessions Court at Mumbai. Consequently, the application for transfer on this legal aspect is rejected. The observations are prima facie in nature.

¶29

(K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.)

Sumitra S. Banerjee v. CBI Acb, Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumitra S. Banerjee v. CBI Acb, Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Popat Vamanro Kapse Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bharati Mohanrao Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kavita Goel and Anr. Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater and Anr.

Jahid @ Sonu Mehboob Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anson Thomas Vs Miliben Mondubhai Mandal and Ors.

Poonam Udayraj Mehta Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.