30.07.2026 Serial no. 29 BP Court No.9 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI CRR 43 of 2025 In the matter of : Debasish Chanda … … Petitioner Mr. Biplab Kumar Sengupta Mr. Uday Sankar Sarkar Mr. Avimannu Das … … For the Petitioner Mr. Avrojyoti Das, Ld. APP Ms. Ruchika Agarwala Mr. Nigam Mittal ..for the State 1. Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated December 19, 2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siliguri in G.R. Case No. 2127 of 2018. 2. By such order, the prayer of the petitioner for supply of a copy of the order refusing sanction to prosecute the accused persons, made by the present petitioner, was refused by the appropriate authority. By the impugned order, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate stated that there was no provision to supply copy of such sanction order to the de-facto complainant and on such ground, the prayer of the petitioner was rejected. 3. State is represented. 4. The petitioner lodged a written complaint accusing some officials of bank in the commission of an offence. The police 2 took up investigation and on conclusion of investigation submitted chargesheet. On the basis of materials in the case diary learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was pleased to take cognizance in the matter. Such order taking cognizance was challenged by the accused persons in CRR 94 of 2022. By an order passed on October 3, 2023, a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court quashed the order taking cognizance of the offences as against the accused persons to the following terms. “Having regard to the facts and the materials which have been collected by the Investigating Agency, I am of the opinion that the Investigating Agency prior to lodging any prosecution against the petitioners should have obtained an order of sanction from the appropriate authorities of the bank. Needless to state that there are some lacuna in the investigation also which I do not intend to deal with at this stage, but prima facie the bank officers have been harassed by way of initiation of criminal investigation while they were working in discharge of their official duties. The learned Magistrate should have considered that they are entitled to protection of sanction. It would be for the appropriate authority of the bank to deal on the issue of sanction for prosecution. The investigating officer could make application for sanction before appropriate authority. The authorities will decide whether in this case sanction should be granted or should not be granted. Thereafter the proceedings before the learned Magistrate would commence. As such, no interference is made in respect of the charge-sheet which has been submitted before the learned ACJM, Siliguri. 3 However, so far as the order of taking cognizance is concerned, the same is hereby quashed. The same would revive only after the appropriate authorities grant sanction for prosecution of the officers or the petitioners who approached this Court.” 5. Thereafter, the petitioner, who happens to be the de-facto complainant in the criminal case, approached before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siliguri seeking supply of a copy of the order passed by the appropriate authority refusing sanction for prosecution of the officials of the bank. Upon hearing, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner as well as State, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate refused to supply a copy of such order on the ground that there was no provision in law for supply of such copies. 6. Section 173(2)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as follows: “173. *** *** *** (1) *** *** *** (2) (i) *** *** *** (ii) The officer shall also communicate, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the action taken by him, to the person, if any, by whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given.” 7. Similarly the corresponding Section 193 (3)(iii) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 reads as under: “193. (1) *** *** *** 4 (2) *** *** *** (3) (i) *** *** *** (ii) *** *** *** (iii) the officer shall also communicate, in such manner as the State Government may, by rules, provide, the action taken by him, to the person, if any, by whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given.” 8. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, since the petitioner is the de-facto complainant of the police case and in view of the provisions of Section 173(2)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 193(3)(iii) of the BNSS, the instant revisional application is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. 9. The petitioner shall be entitled to receive a copy of the order by the appropriate authority refusing sanction to prosecution. The Investigating Officer shall supply a copy of such order to the petitioner. 10. With such finding, the instant revisional application being CRR 43 of 2025 is disposed of. (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)