That plea was upheld by the Special Judge and respondent was discharged which was companycurred with by a Single Judge of the High Court of Calcutta.
But a Special Judge before whom the charge sheet was laid, discharged him under Section 167 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure West Bengal Amendment .
A revision petition was preferred by the State before the High Court of Calcutta assailing the said order of discharge, but in vain.
On the same day a vakalatnama was filed by his advocate in the Court.
First was, on the premise that the investigating officer has made an application before the Special Judge seeking permission to companytinue the investigation.
Hence the State has filed this appeal by special leave.
As the respondent desired to have some documents returned to him, he applied to the companyrt of Special Judge on 29 2 1992 through an advocate praying for return o such documents.
Prosecution proceedings were launched against him under Section 13 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on the allegation that he has acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.
When respondent on 13 7 1996 praying for his discharge under Section 167 5 of the Code West Bengal Amendment on the premise that he appeared in the Court on 29 2 1992 through his companynsel and that numbercharge sheet was filed till the expiry of two years from the said date of appearance.
Thomas, J. Leave granted.
Respondent in this appeal was the Chief Operation of Central Inland Water Transport, Calcutta.
