Sutapa Roy Chowdhury vs UCO Bank Head Office & Anr

Shampa Sarkar, J

Affidavit-in-opposition and affidavit-in-reply filed in Court today are taken on record.

This is a peculiar case where the petitioner and her daughter-in-law Ms. Paroma Roychowdhury maintained a locker jointly in UCO Bank, Southern Avenue Branch, Kolkata. On and from 25th September, 2017, the petitioner had been communicating with the bank requesting the manager to close the locker no. AEA 307 (No. 5/37) which was tagged with S.B. A/c No. 07970110001172. It was specifically contended by the petitioner that the bank should complete the formalities and close the locker. The petitioner further requested the manager to stop debiting the charges as locker rent as the locker was not being allowed to be operated by the bank authorities as the CBI had seized the locker key and the locker documents in 1992. The petitioner also requested the bank to take up the matter with the CBI for their inputs if required. No action was taken by the bank authorities. Neither did they bother to communicate with the petitioner nor did they close the locker. Thereafter the petitioner demanded justice through her learned advocate and letters were issued on 24th October, 2017 and 7th June, 2019. Yet no steps were taken by the bank authorities to rise to the occasion and do the needful without causing further harassment to the petitioner, instead they continued to deduct the locker rent. The petitioner lost her husband, Bhaskar Roy Chowdhury on 3rd June, 2015. The said Bhaskar Roy Chowdhury was an officer of the UCO bank and he retired in the month of July, 1996. The petitioner's husband was an accused in a CBI case which related to the scam pertaining to Harshad Mehta in 1992. The petitioner's husband was granted pardon on his application along with another co-accused by the Special Court before whom the said case was pending. The pardon was granted on 22nd June, 1993. The fact that the CBI case had been closed against the petitioner's late husband was also intimated to the manager of the concerned bank by the learned advocates for the petitioner who had issued the notices demanding of justice. These documents, all form part of the writ petition.

The learned senior advocate for the petitioner today hands up a decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Harshad S. Mehta & ors. -vs- State of Maharashtra reported in (2001) 8 SCC 257. Before the Apex Court Harshad S. Mehta and others preferred a special leave to appeal against an order rejecting the application for revocation of pardon granted by the Special Court to the petitioner's husband. The Hon'ble Apex Court concluded as follows:

"62. Our conclusion, therefore, is that the Special Court established under the Act is a court of exclusive jurisdiction. Sections 6 and 7 confer on that court wide powers. It is a court of original criminal jurisdiction and has all the powers of such a court under the Code including those of Sections 306 to 308.

For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that the learned Special Court rightly rejected the application of the appellants for revocation of the order of pardon. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. The intervention applications are also dismissed."

Under such circumstances, it is impossible to accept the plea of the bank as stated in their Affidavit-in-Opposition that due to the pendency of the CBI case the locker account could not be closed. Yet, as the locker stood in the name of the petitioner, the rental charges were required to be deducted as per banking procedure.

In the affidavit-in-opposition filed in Court today, a photocopy of the hand written instruction has been annexed which says as follows:

"CAUTION

No operation

C.B.I Instruction

Sd/-

13/6/92"

It appears that there is a signature on that slip of paper attached to the locker document, but most surprisingly, the bank authority in their affidavit have failed to even identify the signature of the person. There is nothing in the affidavit-in-opposition to show or even suggest at what point of time and exactly what instruction was received from the CBI with regard to the aforesaid locker.

The strangest part of the entire prosecution is that when the late husband of the petitioner was granted pardon in 1993 and he continued to serve in a relatively high position in the said bank upto 1996 and was allowed to retire and is now no more, there cannot be any cogent reason as to why the locker in which admittedly the petitioner states that there were nothing for her to take back, cannot be closed.

The bank authorities will not debit any further charges as locker rent against the said locker from date. Liberty is granted to the bank manager to take immediate action with regard to the dispute in question after consulting the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court which has been handed over to the learned advocate of the bank. If necessary, the bank may also verify the situation from the CBI. However, it is made clear that the petitioner was never connected with the CBI case and moreover now that her husband has since expired and the complicity of her husband has been ruled out by the trial court and the order had been upheld upto the Hon'ble Apex Court, there cannot be any impediment in allowing closing of the locker forthwith.

Office is directed to forward this order to the Managing Director and CEO of the UCO Bank having his office at 10 BTM Sarani, Kolkata, by special messenger so that the most superior officer can use his good offices to settle the dispute in the meantime and also consider refund of the locker rent deducted after receiving the first request from the petitioner to close the locker. The special messenger cost will be deposited by the petitioner within August 20, 2019.

List this matter in the daily supplementary list on 17th September, 2019.