The case of Tapan Kumar Dey vs State centers on allegations brought by the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) under section 26(2)(ka) of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004. The petitioner, Tapan Kumar Dey, was accused of failing to submit a wealth statement within the statutory time limit despite being served with a notice.

Following the issuance of a charge sheet, arrest warrant, and subsequent denial of bail, the petitioner challenged the legality of the proceedings before the High Court Division, raising critical questions regarding proper notice, justification for delay, and criminal liability under the ACC Act.

The Facts of the Tapan Kumar Dey vs State Case

The Anti-Corruption Commission lodged an FIR against Mr. Tapan Kumar Dey and alleged that in spite of proper service of notice, the accused failed to submit his wealth statement within the time limit of seven days and thus committed an offense under section 26(2)(ka) of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004.

The Commission investigated the case and submitted a charge sheet against the accused and also made prayer for the issuance of the warrant of arrest and attachment of his property. The accused is a petitioner for leave petition. The case was sent to the Senior Metropolitan Special Judge who issued the warrant of arrest.

The accused surrendered before court but the court did not grant bail and sent him to jail. He filed an application before the court for discharging him from the case. The court transferred the case to the Divisional Special Judge and the judge also rejected the application and framed the charge against him. The petitioner filed an application before the High Court Division.

Issues of the Case

• Whether the accused-petitioner was served with a notice in time to respond?
• Whether accused was prevented by sufficient reasons from submitting a wealth statement within
• time?
• Whether he is liable under section 26(2)(ka) of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004?

Decision

The decision of a Division Bench of the High Court Division was made against the petitioner.

Justification

As per the provision of section 33 of the Act of 2004, the Commission shall have a permanent prosecution unit triable by Special judges. In that case, the Commission was a necessary party to be implemented but not made a party in the case.

So it is a controversial fact that is to be decided by the trial court and there are no merits in the leave petition. It appears that the petitioner did not submit his wealth statement within a fixed time and is liable to be proceeded with.