Calcutta High Court Postpones Verdict on Criminal Cases Against Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee
The Calcutta High Court has decided to defer its judgment concerning the 482 CrPC petition submitted by Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee. The petition seeks to quash the criminal cases filed against him in relation to the Municipal and Teacher-Recruitment scam. This scam allegedly involved offering government job positions to potential candidates in return for monetary benefits.
Banerjee’s defense emphasized that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had conducted an unauthorized raid on “Leaps & Bounds”, a company where he held the position of CEO. This raid occurred after the conclusion of arguments in the ongoing case. Justice Tirthankar Ghosh, presiding over the matter, stated,
“On 21.08.2023, the hearing of the arguments in connection with this case was concluded… and this Court reserved the judgment and fixed 05.09.2023, as the date for pronouncement of the judgment. Subsequently, an application was taken out on behalf of the petitioner claiming that in the interregnum period, a raid was conducted at an office, namely, ‘Leaps & Bounds’ wherein the petitioner happens to be the Chief Executive Officer and for a limited period of time, the petitioner was also a Director. Mr. Datta, learned senior advocate for the petitioner submits that the same was not with the consent and knowledge of the employees or the Officers of the said Company. In view of the present circumstances, the date fixed for delivery of the judgment for the time being is kept in abeyance.”
This recent development follows the dismissal of an SLP by Banerjee in the Supreme Court. The apex court, however, granted him the liberty to approach the High Court under Section 482 CrPC.
Justice Ghosh had previously released the matter, given that all cases related to the teachers and municipal recruitment scam were under the purview of Justice Amrita Sinha. However, the Chief Justice later reassigned the case to him.
During the hearing, Banerjee’s counsel highlighted that the ED had raided a company owned by him, allegedly downloading 16 files from the company’s computers without the presence of its officers. This action, they argued, could be detrimental to Banerjee’s position. Contrarily, ASG SV Raju, representing the ED, countered that no hard drives were seized and that the agency’s actions were conducted in the presence of company officers.
Taking cognizance of these developments, the Court instructed the ED, Cyber Police, Kolkata, and the Central Forensic Sciences Laboratory (CFSL) to collaborate. The CFSL has been directed to present hard copies of the 16 files allegedly extracted from the company during the next hearing scheduled for 4th September.
Case: Abhishek Banerjee v Directorate of Enforcement (ED) Coram: Justice Tirthankar Ghosh
