Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010245342024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/60/2025 SRI RANJIT DAS S/O SRI BARINDRA KR. DAS R/O WARD NO. 3 HOLDING NO. 171 MADHYAPARA BANSBARI P.O. RAJBARI P.S. JORHAT (SADAR) DIST. JORHAT ASSAM IN-785001 PRESENT ADDRESS- GOKUL DHAM APARTMENT FLAT NO. B- 502 (NEAR GROCER DEPARTMENTAL STORE) PANDUPORT ROAD VERSUS THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR GOVT. OF INDIA 6TH FLOOR LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI PIN-110003. 2:THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ANTI CORRUPTION BRANCH ASSAM THROUGH THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND HEAD OF BRANCH CBI ACB BETKUCHI (OPP. BALAJI TEMPLE) GUWAHATI Page No.# 2/6 PIN-781035 3:THE UNDER SECRETARY MINISTRY OF RAILWAY GOVT. OF INDIA RAILWAY BOARD NEW DELHI-1. 4:SAPONTI HAZARIKA INSPECTOR (ACB GUWAHATI) CBI ACB BETKUCHI (OPP. BALAJI TEMPLE) GUWAHATI PIN-781035 ------------ Advocate for : MR BIMAL CHETRI Advocate for : SC CBI appearing for THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND 3 ORS BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 11.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. B. Chetri, the learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. M. Haloi, the learned Special Public Prosecutor, CBI appearing for the respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. K. Kalita, appearing on behalf of Mr. K. K. Parasar, the learned CGC. 2. This Interlocutory Application has been filed by the petitioner, Ranjit Das, in connection with Criminal Petition No. 1416/2024, which has been filed by the applicant for quashing the proceeding of Special Case No. 04/2023, pending before the Court of learned Special Judge, CBI No.2, Guwahati. Page No.# 3/6 3. In this Interlocutory Application, the applicant has prayed for staying the further proceeding of the Special Case No. 4/2023, during the pendency of the connected Criminal Petition No.1416/2023. 4. The facts relevant for the consideration of the instant Interlocutory Application, in brief, are: i. That the applicant had retired from service on superannuation on 28.02.2021 as Deputy Chief Engineer. After about nine months of his retirement, an FIR was lodged against him on 30.11.2021, accusing him of amassing disproportionate asset to the extent of 47.53%. The check period of the alleged offence was stated in the FIR to be from 01.01.2013 to 31-12-2019. ii. After completion of the investigation, the Central Bureau of Investigation laid the charge-sheet bearing charge-sheet No. 07/2023 on 08.11.2023, showing disproportionate asset of the petitioner to the extent of 89.96%. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the FIR, which was lodged against the present petitioner, the name of the informant has not been mentioned. He has further submitted that though, the percentage of disproportionate asset has been shown as 47.53% in the FIR, the same has been shown as 89.96% in the charge-sheet without any basis. 6. He has further submitted that while granting sanction for prosecution against the present petitioner, the sanctioning authority did not give any opportunity of being heard to the present petitioner. Hence, he submits that the sanction is itself vitiated due to violation of the principles of natural justice. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the charges under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(b) and under Section Page No.# 4/6 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were framed against the petitioner. However, he submits that Section 13(1)(e) is no longer exists in the statute book. Hence, the framing of the charges is also defective. 8. He submits that the petitioner has assailed all the above points in the connected Criminal Petition filed by the petitioner and unless the further proceeding of the Special Case No. 4/2023 is stayed, the Criminal Petition No.1416/2024 filed by the petitioner would become infructuous. 9. On the other hand, Mr. B. Haloi, the learned Special Public Prosecutor, CBI has vehemently opposed the prayer for staying the proceeding of Special Case No. 4/2023, pending before the Court of learned Special Judge, CBI No. 2, Assam on the ground that Section 19(3)(b)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 there is an embargo on staying a criminal proceeding under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity of sanction on any other ground. 10. He submits that the prayer for staying the proceedings before the Trial Court was rejected by this Court at the initial stage by order dated 29.01.2025 and no additional documents have been produced by the petitioner after the said rejection. 11. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record. 12. On perusal of the order dated 29.01.2025 passed by this Court in this Interlocutory Application, it appears that the prayer for staying the proceeding of Special Case No. 4/2023 was not allowed by this Court at Page No.# 5/6 that stage and it was directed that the parties may furnish additional documents so that the prayer for stay may be considered afresh. 13. However, it appears that after the rejection of the prayer for stay at the initial stage, no additional document has been furnished by the petitioner in this case. This in itself is sufficient for this Court not to consider the prayer for stay afresh when once the said prayer was considered and was not allowed. 14. In the instant case, the accusation against the present petitioner is amassing wealth beyond his known source of income, while he was in service. 15. The plea raised by the petitioner in the connected criminal petition may be heard at the earliest and the criminal petition filed by the petitioner can itself be disposed of. 16. This Court is of the considered opinion that mere filing of a criminal petition and praying for quashing of criminal proceedings in itself does not warrant the stay of proceedings, which is sought to be quashed, when the criminal petition itself may be heard at the earliest. 17. It is no longer res integra that power of quashing and interfering with the proceedings of a criminal case should be exercised sparingly and with circumspections and in the rarest of rare cases. 18. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner has failed to make out a case for stay of the proceedings of the Special Case No. 4/2023, during the pendency of the connected criminal petition, which is ready for hearing. Page No.# 6/6 19. This interlocutory application is therefore, dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant