Holding

Since investigation of both the State Police FIR and the sixteen CBI FIRs was entrusted to a single agency (CBI), the question of a "first FIR" became academic and the revision applications were dismissed as infructuous, with all cases transferred to the Third Special Judge, CBI, Calcutta.

Summary

The Bank of Rajasthan alleged that the Bangur group siphoned its funds, prompting a CBI inquiry and the registration of sixteen FIRs. Concurrently, the Alipore Police registered FIR No.138/2001 against the Bangurs, which was later closed because the investigation was transferred to the CBI. The respondents filed revision applications under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash the CBI FIRs on the ground that the police FIR was the "first FIR" and the CBI FIRs were second, duplicate filings. The Supreme Court held that, since both the police FIR and the sixteen CBI FIRs were placed under the sole investigation of the CBI, the issue of a "first FIR" became academic and the revision applications were dismissed as infructuous. The Court also ordered the transfer of all related cases to the Third Special Judge, CBI, Calcutta for trial and dismissed the pending appeals and interim orders as infructuous.

Issues considered

Whether the FIR registered by the State Police constitutes the first FIR, rendering the subsequent CBI FIRs as second FIRs and invalid.
Whether the revision applications under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the CBI FIRs are maintainable.
Whether the closure report of the State Police FIR is valid when investigation is transferred to the CBI.
Whether the pending cases should be transferred to the Third Special Judge, CBI, Calcutta.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 154, s. 156(3), s. 173(2), s. 173(8), s. 482

Subjects

FIRmultiple FIRsSection 482 CrPCCBI investigationtransfer of casescriminal procedureclosure reportSupreme Court

Judgment

A BANK OF RAJASTHAN )-.,

V.
KESHAV BANGUR AND ANR.

OCTOBER 3, 2007
B .
[S.H. KAPADIA AND B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, JJ.]
._,(

Investigation-Investigation into F!Rs-Lodged before different
agencies-FIRs registeredby CBIpursuant to direction by Court-State
c Police registering FIR u/s 154 Cr.P. C.-Closure ofFIR ofState Police
in view of investigation by CBI-Revision Application of accused
seeking quashing ofFIRs ofCBI in view ofFIRs ofState Police-High
Court as well as Supreme Court directing investigation ofall the FIRs
by CBI-Held: In view ofclosure ofFIR ofState Police and direction
D of High Court and Supreme Court regarding investigation of FIRs,
'(>
Revision Applications have become infructuous-Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-s. 482.

In a Writ Petition from a Kannchari Sangh alleging siphoning of
E funds of appellant Bank by the respondents, inquiry was conducted by
CBI, on the direction of High Court. In Special Appeal, High Court
directed CBI to continue further investigation, and CBI registered FIRs
in respect of 16 cases.

In the meantime one FIR was registered by State Police pursuant
F
to direction of Criminal Court in a complaint of one 'N' against the
respondents. Respective Writ Petitions were filed by the appellant-Bank
challenging the registration of FIR by State Police, and by 'N' for
direction for expeditious investigation by the State Police. High Court
directed expeditions investigation of FIR registered by State Police.
G
Respondents-accused filed application in the Special Appeal stating that
· in view of registration of FIR by State Police, Information Reports
registered by CBI did not constitute on FIR in law. Respondents-accused
also filed an application in the Writ Petition ofthe Kannachari Sangh,
H 506
--/
BANK OF RAJAS THAN v_ KESHAV BANG UR 507

seeking dismissal of the Writ Petition by the Sangh in view of the FIR A
registered by State Police.

The FIR of State Police was closed in view of the fact that
investigation had been taken by CBI and the documents had been
transferred to CBI.
B
Respondent No. 1 accused filed two Applications u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
seeking quashing of the sixteen FIRs by CBI on the ground that they
were second FIRs, the first being the FIR registered by State Police.
Calcutta High Court by its interim order directed CBI to proceed with
the investigation. However, taking ofcogniz.ance was prohibited without C
prior permission of the Court. By another interim order proceedings
pending before Special Judge, CBI, Mumbai was stayed. Hence the
present appeals, challenging the interim orders and Transfer Petition
seeking transfer of case pending before Special Judge, CBI, Mumbai
to Special Judge, CBI, Calcutta. D

This Court by its order dated 8.3.2007 directed CBI to investigate
into FIR of State Police and submit its Report before this Court.
Disposing of the appeals and allowing the transfer petition, the
Court. E

HELD: 1.1. The direction of the High Court contained in the
impugned judgment read with the order dated 8.3.07 passed by this
Court indicates that investigation into FIR registered by State Police
as well as into sixteen FIRs have been entrusted to one single agency, F
namely, CBI. In the circumstances, the question of first FIR has become
academic. Consequently, two civil revision applications filed by the
respondent in the High Court will not survive. They stand dismissed as
infructuous. [Para 15) [516-E-F]
G
1.2. A Closure Report in Final Form was drawn up in connection
with FIR registered by State Police inasmuch as CBI had taken up the
investigation. The hearing on the final Report of Closure was concluded
before Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate. However, the said Closure
was not on merits of the case. It was only on account of the fact that H
508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 10 S.C.R.

A investigation stood transferred to CBI. Consequently, now the State
Police has no role to play. (Para 15) (516-G-H; 517-A]

1.3. In the present case since investigation has been done by CBI
(common agency), the report submitted by it to this Court, pursuant to
B the order dated 8.3.07 passed by this Court would also be placed before
the Third SpecialJudge, CBI, Calcutta and it would be for that court to
decide whether the aspects covered in FIR registered by State Police
stand covered by the report ofCBI in the said sixteen FIRs or whether
FIR registered by State Police deals with some aspect which is left out
C by CBI in the said sixteen cases. (Para 16) (518-B-C)
Kari Choudharyv. Most, sita Devin and Ors., AIR (2002) SC 441,
relied on.
5. The Special Case arising out ofRC 7/E/2002/Mumbai and RC6/
D E/2002/Mumbai shall stand transferred from the Court ofSpecial Judge,
CBI, Mumbai, (City Sessions Court) to the Third Special Judge, CBI, A
Calcutta. (Para 18)
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos.
1327-1328 of 2007.
E
From the Interlocutory Orders dated 13.9.2004 and 1.10.2004 of
the High Court of Calcutta in C.R.A.N. No. 1595/2004 in C.R.R. No.
2545/2003.
WITH
F
Crl. A. Nos. 1329-1330, 1331:-1332, 1333, 1334 and 1335 of
2007, T.P. (Crl.) Nos. 104, 387-388/2004, 82/2005 and T.P.(C) Nos.
236-243/2002.
R. Mohan, A.S.G., Shyam Divan, Ranjit Kumar, Indira Jaising,
G Paras Kuhad, Hemant Sharma, Prateek Jalan, Ajay Kumar, Rachan ~
Srivastav, Tarun Johri, Barun K. Sinha, Arnn Monga, Pratibha Sinha, B.K.
Satija, Anupam Lal Das, P. Parmeswaran, A. Mariarputham, Aruna
Mathur, E.C. Agrawala, S.K. Sabharwal, Naresh Bakshi, Tushar Bakshi,
Avijit Bhattacharjee, Saumya Kundu, Indra Sawhney and Sunil Kumar
H
I
,J

BANK OF RAJASTHAN v. KESHA V BANGUR 509
[KAPADIA, J.]
. f
--(
Jain for 1.he appearing parties. A
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KAPADIA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Akhil Bhartiya Karamchari Sangh filed Writ Petition No.2094 of
1999 in the Rajasthan High Court alleging that Bangur Group ("Bangurs'' B
for short) was responsible for siphoning off funds of the Banlc ofRajasthan
("BOR" for short). As per the order dated 27.9.99, the CBI registered
a preliminary enquiry. This was on 25.10.99. CBI submitted Interim
Reports between 28.3.00 and 14.7.00. On 11.12.00, CBI submitted its
Final Enquiry Report. Vide order dated 27.4.01 the Single Judge directed C
BOR to file criminal complaints. Against the said order dated 27.4.0 I,
BOR filed special appeal before the Division Bench of Rajasthan High
Court saying that since CBI had enquired into the whole matter it (i.e.
CBI) should alone be directed to continue with the investigation. Vide
Order dated 31.5.02, the Division Bench directed CBI to continue with D
the investigation. Pursuant to the said order dated 31.5.02 CBI registered
sixteen cases and filed charge sheets as per details given below:
(as shown on page 510)

3. In the meantime, one Navneet Baheti buys 500 shares ofBOR E
during the period between 13.7.01 and 20.7.01.
4. On complaint being filed by Navneet Baheti under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C., the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, vide order dated 23.7.01,
directed the officer-in-charge of Alipore Police Station to register and
investigate under Ser.tion 156(3) Cr.P.C. after treating his complaint as F
FIR. Accordingly, on 25.7.01 Alipore Police Station registered FIR
No.138 of2001 against Bangurs under Section 120B, 406, 409, 420,
467, 468, 471and477A IPC. On 24.9.2001 BOR filed Writ Petition
No.1449112001 in Calcutta High Court challenging the registration of FIR
No.138of2001. On 25.9.01 Navneet Baheti also filed Writ Petition G
No.14538/2001 in Calcutta High Court praying for expedition of the
investigations by the State Police. In the meantime on 27.9.01 Bangurs
filed an affidavit before the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court in
Special Appeal No.333 of 2001 in which they contended that since
Alipore Police station had registered FIR No.138 of2001on25.7.01, H
s.
No.
Case No. Name of
the branch
Amount
involved in
Name
of the
Date of
filing
Name of
the Court
Present status -
0
Vl

Rs. Court charge where the
where sheet, if charge
the FIR any sheet was
r:/1
was filed e'"C
registered
1 RC CBI/EOW/ 3 crores Ld. 3rd 03.06.04 Ld. 3rd Cognizance has ~
~
9/E/02-Kol Kol Sp!. Sp!. since been taken tTJ
Judge, Judge, and further n
Kol. Kolkata. progress is 0
pending awaiting
e~
orders >-l
~
2 RC CBI/EOW/ 15.105 Ld. 3rd 25.11.04 Lrd. 3rd Charge sheet tTJ
'"C
1O/E/02/Kol. Kol. crores Sp!. Sp!. filed in the Court 0
Judge,
Kol.
Judge,
Kolkata.
but further progress
is pending awaiting
~
r:/1
orders.
., ,.--,
.) RC11/E/02- CBI/EOW/ 2 crores Ld. 3rd 12.10.04 Ld. 3rd Charge sheet N
0
Kol. Kol. Sp!. Sp!. filed in the Court 0
-..J
.........
Judge,
Kol.
Judge,
Kolkata
but further progress
is pending-awaiting
orders.
-
0
r:/1
h
~
~
_.l
~ >---
.
'(
.l- ... ·~
',L

-·
'Y

to
4 RC 12/FJ02-
Kol
CBI/EOW/
Kol.
46.50 lacs. Lrd. 3rd
Sp!.
02.04.04 Ld. 3rd
Sp!.
Cog. Has since been
taken, but further trial
:z
~
Judge, Judge, is pending awaiting 0
'Tj
Kol. Kolkata. orders
5 RC13/FJ02-
Kol.
CBI/EOW/
Kol.
1,07,66;265/- Ld. 3rd
Sp!.
- Ld. 3rd
Sp!.
Investigation
completed but
~
:>
Judge, Judge, charge sheet not ,........, C/J

Kolkata Kolkata. accepted by the Ld.
3rd Spl. Judge,
~~:>
""'O
Kolkata awaiting :> z
orders sz~
,?>~
6 RCI4/FJ02- CBI/EOW/ 498.82 lacs. Ld. 3rd 08.04.03 Ld. 3rd Cognizance taken .__, tT1
..:...... C/J
Kol. Kol. Sp!. Sp!. by the Court of the ::r:
Judge, Judge, Ld. 3rd Sp!. Judge, :>
Kol. Kolkata Kolkata was quashed <
to
by the Hon'ble High
Court of Kolkata and
was further
:zCl
investigated as per.
c
:::0
the orders of the
Hon'ble High Court.
Further investigation
Vl
Vl
has been completed N
but supplementary
charge sheet is ready
to be filed in the Ld.
3rd Spl. Judge,
(/)
Kolkata
c""'d
7 RC15/E/02- CBI/EOW/ 102 lacs Ld. 3rd 23.12.04 Ld. 3rd Charge sheet filed in
Kol. Kol. Sp!. Sp!. the court, trial ~
Judge, Judge, pending awaiting ~
m
Kol. Kolkata orders. n
0
8 RC04/E/03- CBI/EOW/ 1,65,89,595/- Ld. 3rd - Ld. 3rd Investigation has c
~
Kol. Kol. Sp!. Sp!. ·since been completed
Judge, Judge, and charge sheet is
?O
Kol. Kolkata ready to be filed. m
':'O
9 RC06/E/02- CBI/EOW/ 2 crores Ld. 3rd 30.12.03 Ld.Spl. Cognizance has since 0
Mum. Mumbai Sp!.
Judge,
Judge for been taken but trial is ~
CBI cases, pending awaiting (/)

Kol. Greater order.
Mumbai ,......,
N
C>
10 RC07/E/02- CBI/EOW/ 2 crores Ld. 3rd 30.12.03 Ld.Spl. Cognizance has since C>
-.l
Mum. Mumbai Sp!. Judge for been taken, but trial ........
_.
Judge, CBI cases, is pending awaiting 0
Kol. Greater order. r/1
Mumbai n
po
-~/
....
~ ,Jo-- y,
~ .,..
.J .
,... ,L

~

11 RC/SIA/02/ CBI/SIU- 9.5 crores Ld. 3rd cs Ld. 3rd Cognizance has not
E/003 X/BS&FC/ Sp!. forwarded Sp!. yet been taken
N.Delhi Judge, on Judge, awaiting orders. co
Kol. 27.12.03 Kolkata
~
12 RC/SIA/02/ CBI/SIU- 5 crores Ld. 3rd cs Ld. 3rd Cognizance has not ~
Ei'004 X/BS&FC/ Sp!. forwarded Sp!. yet been taken 0
"Tl
N.Delhi Judge, on Judge, awaiting orders.
Kol. 27.12.03 Kolkata ~
13 RC/SIA/02/ CBI/SIU- 5 crores Ld. 3rd 30.6.04 Ld. 3rd Cognizance has not ~
...._, r:f.J
Ei'005 XIBS&FC/ Spl. Spl. yet been taken
N.Delhi Judge, Judge, awaiting orders. ~~
>
'i::1
Kol. Kolkata
;:i;.Z
14 RC/BDl/02/ CBI/BS& 5 crores Ld. 3rd cs Ld. 3rd Cognizance has not o~
Ei'0003 FC/ Spl. forwarded Spl. yet been taken }= ~
N.Delhi Judge, on Judge, awaiting orders. '-< tT:l
..:....., r:f.J
Kol. 28.12.03 Kolkata ::i::
15 RC/BDI/02/ CBI/BS& 5 crores Ld. 3rd cs Ld. 3rd Cognizance has not >
Ei'0004 FC/ Spl. forwarded Spl. yet been taken
<
co
~
N.Delhi Judge, on Judge, awaiting orders.
Kol. 28.12.03 Kolkata
a
c;:i;;
16 RC/BDl/02/ CBl/BS& 5 crores Ld. 3rd cs Ld. 3rd Cognizance has not
Ei'0004 FC/ Spl. forwarded Spl. yet been taken
N.Delhi Judge, on Judge, awaiting orders.
Kol. 28.12.03 Kolkata Vi
'-.;)
514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R.

A Information Report registered by CBI on 31.5.02 did not constitute an )-....
FIR in law. They accordingly prayed for the discontinuance of the process
in the hands of CBI.
5. By order dated 3.10.01 in W.P. No.14491 of2001 the Calcutta
B High Court directed the Alipore Police Station to proceed with the
investigations in FIR No.138/01 in accordance with law.
6. On 28.11.01 Bangurs filed an application before the Rajasthan
High Court in Writ Petition No. 2094/99 in which they contended that in
view of FIR No.138/01 filed in Alipore Police Station, Calcutta, the
C directions passed by the single judge for investigations by CBI be set
aside. That, the said Writ Petition No.2094/99 filed by the Akhil Bhartiya
Karamchari Sangh be dismissed accordi_ngly.
7. On 31.5.02, the Division Bench ofRajasthanHigh Court passed
D the following order in Special Appeal No.333 of2001 which reads as
follow:
"In our view, the directions issued by the learned Single Judge for
the bank to prosecute the criminal proceedings by filing a private
complaint in the criminal court is neither just nor fair nor proper
E and is not in accordance with the law. Considering the facts revealed
in the report submitted by the CBI. Accordingly, we quash the
directions given by the learned Single Judge in its order 27.4.2001
directing the bank to file a criminal complaint in regard to the facts
revealed in the CBI report and instead thereof direct the CBI to
F continue, with the enquiry/investigation in accordance with the law
and proceed further to take up the matter before the appropriate
criminal court by taking appropriate steps."
8. On 12.7.02 a Closure Report was filed in Final Form in FIR 138/
G 01 by Ali pore Police Station stating that since investigation has been taken
by CBI and since documents have been transferred to CBI, the said FIR f--
138/01 be ordered to be closed. That prayer was ultimately accepted
by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, Calcutta. However, it may
be noted that the said closure was not on merits.
H
j
l
BANK OF RAJAS THAN v. KESHAV BANGUR 515
[KAPADIA, J.]
9. On 27.11.03, Keshav Bangur filed Criminal Revision Application A
Nos.2545 and 2852of2003 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing
the sixteen FIRs by CBI on the ground that they were second FIRs, the
first being FIR No.138/2001 arising from the complaints filed by Navneet
Baheti. Vide interim order dated 13.9.04, the Calclutta High Court
directed CBI to proceed with the investigations in all sixteen cases, B
however, it directed that cognizance should not be taken without prior
permission from High Court. Similarly, by interim order 1.10.04 the
Calcutta High Court stayed further proceedings pending before the Special
Judge, CBI, Mumbai.
10. The above interim orders were challenged by BOR before this
c
Court vide Special Leave Petitions. This Court vide order dated 3.12.04
stayed the interim orders of the Calcutta High Court.
11. By impugned judgment dated 23.12.04, the above two criminal
revisions filed by Keshav Bangur came up for hearing when the Calcutta D
High Court vacated all interim orders and directed CBI to take up
investigation of Alipore PS Case No.138/01. The High Court further
observed that in course of investigation of Ali pore PS Case No.138/01,
it would be open to the CBI to take into consideration the said sixteen
FIRs also. Thus, the investigation of FIR No.138/01 and the sixteen FIRs E
was ordered to be done by one common agency viz. CBI.
12. Aggrieved by the decision of the Calcutta High Court dated
23.12.04, BOR came to this Court vide two Special Leave Petitions. By
order dated 8.3.07, this Court directed CBI to proceed with the F
investigation into FIR No.138/01 and submit its report in a sealed cover
within six weeks which has been done.
13. In this batch of cases the controversy raised is as follows:
"Whether registration of FIR No.138/01 by Calcutta Police G
constituted the first FIR and, if so, whether the process in the hands
of CBI initiated at the instance of the Rajasthan High Court stood
discontinued when the Calcutta Police registered the first FIR
No.138/01."

H
\ I
'
516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 10 S.C.R.

A 14. The main contention raised in Crl. Appeal No ....... of2007
arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 78112007 - filed by Keshav Bangur is that >--.
the investigative power ofthe police in a cognizable offence originates from
lodging of an FIR under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. and when an FIR is
already pending registration of a series of FIRs in respect ofthe same
B cognizable offence would be a gross abuse of the process of the court.
15. The above question has now become academic for the following
reasons. Firstly, in our order dated 8.3.07 we directed CBI to proceed
with investigation into FIR No.138 of2001 filed in P.S. Alipore, Calcutta.
Under the said order we also directed CBI to submit their report under
C a seal~ cover within six weeks. That Report has been placed before us.
We have gone through that Report. We do not wish to discuss the contents
of the Report at this stage. By the impugned judgment, the Calcutta High
Court has directed CBI to take up the investigation of Alipore PS Case
No.138/01 and has further directed that in the course of such investigation
D of the said Case No.138/01 it would be open to CBI to take into
consideration the aforestated sixteen FIRs, the period during which the
alleged offence were committed and thereafter to decide the course of
action to be taken in accordance with law. The learned Sub Divisional
Judicial Magistrate was also directed to transmit the record of Alipore
E PS Case No.138/01 to the Third Special Judge, CBI, Calcutta. We agree
with the said direction. The said direction of the Calcutta High Court
contained in the impugned judgment read with our order dated 8.3.07
indicates that investigation into FIR No.138/01 as well as into sixteen FIRs
have been entrusted to one single agency, namely, CBI. In the ,,.._
F circumstances, the question of First FIR has become academic. That
question no more survives. Consequently, two civil revision applications
filed by Keshav Bangur in the High Court bearing Nos.2545 and 2852
of2003 will not survive. They stand dismissed as infructuous. Secondly,
on 12.7.02 a Closure Report in Final Form was drawn up in connection
G with FIR No.138/01 inasmuch as CBI had taken up the investigation. The
hearing on the Final Report of Closure was concluded before Sub
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Alipore. It was allowed by Sub Divisional
Judicial Magistrate. However, it may be clarified that the said Closure was
not on merits of the case. The said Closure was only on account of the
H
BANK OF RAJAS THAN v. KESHAV BANGUR 517
[KAPADIA, J.]
fact that the investigation stood transferred to CBI. Consequently, now A
the Alipore Police Station has no role to play. Lastly, in the case of Kari
Choudharyv. Most. Sita Devi and Ors., AIR (2002) SC 441 at page
443, this Court has explained the legal position in case ofFIRs being filed
against the same accused in respect of the same case. This Court has
held that when there are rival versions in respect of the same incident, B
they would normally take the shape of two different FIRs and investigation
can be carried on under both by the same investigating agency. That, to
set aside the proceedings merely on the ground that the final report has
been laid in the first FIR is, to say the least, too technical as the ultimate
object of every investigation is to find out whether the offences alleged C
have been committed and if so who has committed them. Even otherwise,
the investigating agency is not precluded from further investigation in
respect of an offence in spite of forwarding a report under Section 173(2)
on a previous occasion. We quote hereinbelow paragraphs 11 and 12 of
the said judgment which read as follow: n
"11. Learned counsel adopted an alternative contention that once
the proceeding initiated under FIR No. 135 ended in a final report
the police had no authority to register a second FIR and number
it as FIR 208. Of course the legal position is that there cannot be E
two FIRs against the same accused in respect of the same case.
But when there are rival versions in respect ofthe same episode,
they would normally take the shape of two different F!Rs and
investigation can be carried on under both of them by the
same investigating agency. Even that apart, the report submitted F
by the court styling it as FIR No. 208 of 1998 need be considered
as an information submitted to the court reading the new discovery
made by the police during investigation the persons not named in
FIR No. 135 are the real culprits. To quash the said proceeding
merely on the ground that final report had been laid in FIR No. G
135 is, to say the least, too technical. The ultimate object of every
investigation is to find out whether the offences alleged have been
committed and, if so, who have committed it.
12. Even otherwise the investigating agency is not precluded from
H
518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R.

A further investigation in respect of an offence in spite of forwarding
a report under Sub-section (2) of Section 173 on a previous
>--.
occasion. This is clear from Section 173(8) of the Code."
(emphasis supplied)
B 16. Applying the above test to the present batch of cases, in our ·
view, suffice it to state that since investigation has been done by CBI.
(common agency) the report submitted by it to this Court, pursuant to
our order dated 8.3.07, would also be placed before the Third Special
Judge, CBI, Calcutta and it would be for that court to decide whether
C the aspects covered in FIR No.138/01 stand covered by the report of
CBI in the said sixteen FIRs or whether FIR No.138/01 deals with some
aspect which is left out by CBI in the said sixteen cases. Accordingly, it
would decide whether the sixteen cases cover all aspects including those
falling under FIR No.138/01 or whether FIR No.138/01 has some
D aspects which do not fall in the sixteen cases and, accordingly, it would
decide whether to accept the report submitted by CBI before us pursuant
to our order dated 8.3.07. Similarly, it would be for that court to decide
whether alleged siphoning off took place under same transaction or under
separate transactions. Suffice it to state, all the above cases from Calcutta,
E Mumbai and Delhi shall be tried and disposed of in accordance with law
by the Third Special Judge, CBI, Calcutta.
17. In Transfer Petition (Cr!.) No.104 o/2004 filed by Keshav
Bangur versus CBI, the applicant has prayed for transfer of Special Case
F No.97 of 2003 filed before the Court of Special Judge, CBI, Greater
Mumbai, (City Sessions Court) be transferred to the Third Special Judge,
CBI, Calcutta.
18. That, Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. I 04of2004 filed by Keshav
Bangur accordingly stands allowed and consequently the Special Case
G No.97 of2003 arising out ofRC7/E/2002/Mumbai and RC6/E/2002/
Mumbai shall stand transferred from the Court of Special Judge, CBI,
Mumbai, (City Sessions Court) to the Third Special Judge, CBI, Calcutta.
19. We are informed that six cases filed before the Special Judge,
H Delhi, have already been transferred to the Third Special Judge, CBI,
'
~
/
BANK OF RAJASTHAN v. KESHA V BANGUR 519
[KAPADIA, J.]

"-4 Calcutta. A
CONCLUSION
20. We direct all the aforestated sixteen cases to be tried and
disposed of in accordance with law by the Third Special Judge, CBI,
Calcutta. We direct the Third Special Judge, CBI, Calcutta, to proceed B
on day-to-day basis and complete the trial as expeditiously as possible.
)-
21. Consequently, Crl. Appeal No 1327-1328 of2007 arising out
of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 5566-67 of2004, Crl. Appeal No. 1329-1330 of
2007 arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 5568-5569 of2004, Crl. Appeal
No. 1331-1332 of2007 arising out ofSLP (Crl.) Nos. 5572-73 of2004,
c
T.P. (C) Nos. 236-243/2002, T.P. (Crl.) Nos. 387-388/2004 and T.P.
(Crl.) No. 82/2005 shall stand dismissed as infructuous as they pertain
to interim orders passed by the High Court.
22. Accordingly, our above judgment is delivered in Crl. Appeal No. D
1333 of2007 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 634 of2005, Crl. Appeal
No. 1334 of2007 arising out ofSLP (Crl.) No. 635 of2005, Crl. Appeal
No. 1335 of2007 arising out ofSLP (Crl.) No. 781 of2007, which are
all disposed of in light of this judgment along with T.P. (Crl.) No. 104 of
2004. In view of our aforestated judgment, Writ Petition No. 2094 of E.
1999 filed by the Akhil Bhartiya Karamchari Sangh in the Rajasthan High
Court also stands disposed of.
_,,. 23. Accordingly, the above matters are disposed of with no order
as to costs.
F
K.K.T. Appeals disposed of and Transfer Petitions allowed.