Calcutta High Court Orders Action in Darjeeling SSA Fund Case

PTI, May 4, 2026, Kolkata : Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has directed that the Darjeeling Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) funds misappropriation case be transferred to a Special Judge, holding that proceedings must continue before the competent court after finding that a magistrate had acted without jurisdiction.

The court also directed the Special Judge to take steps to secure the arrest of the main accused, who has not yet been apprehended, and, if necessary, to segregate the case of the present accused persons to ensure expeditious trial.

Justice Krishna Rao ruled that once provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act were added on September 18, 2006, the case became triable exclusively by a Special Court.

The magistrate, however, continued to pass orders, including granting an extension of time for investigation and taking cognisance of the chargesheet, all of which were declared without jurisdiction and set aside.

The case relates to alleged fraudulent withdrawal and misappropriation of over Rs 5 crore from funds meant for the construction of school buildings and related infrastructure in the Darjeeling Gorkha Hill Council under the SSA scheme.

According to the complaint, funds were withdrawn through multiple self-issued cheques between December 2004 and March 2005 without being disbursed to the intended beneficiaries, irregularities that later surfaced during the audit.

The petitioner, accused of encashing a cheque worth Rs 3.6 lakh, had sought quashing of the proceedings on the ground that the investigation was not completed within the statutory time limit.

The High Court rejected this contention, noting that the petitioner had not sought discharge before filing of the chargesheet and that such a right lapses once the chargesheet is submitted.

Setting aside all orders passed by the magistrate after September 18, 2006, the court directed the immediate transfer of records to the competent Special Judge, who will proceed in accordance with the law.

The High Court further set aside the revisional order of the sessions court that had upheld the magistrate’s decision and clarified that it had not examined the merits of the allegations, leaving all issues open for determination by the Special Court.