Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Dhirendra Nath Samaddar vs Unknown on 25 February, 2019
Author: Jay Sengupta
Bench: Jay Sengupta
1 25.02.2019
CRR 2394 of 2018 Ct. No. 29 In the matter of:- Dhirendra Nath Samaddar ...petitioner Mr. Sabyasachi Banerjee, Mr. Satadru Lahiri.
...for the petitioner.
Upon the prayer of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, leave is granted to amend the cause title to add the de facto complainant as an opposite party.
This is an application challenging an order dated 17th July, 2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barasat, 24-Parganas (North) in GR Case No.1016 of 2006, thereby rejecting the petitioner's prayer for discharge in connection with the case.
The learned Advocate submits that the petitioner is a practicing advocate who was not even named in the First Information Report. But, in the charge sheet he is described as accused no.6. According to the learned Advocate, the prime allegation against the present petitioner is that he had issued a search certificate that was placed before the concerned bank, which finally awarded a cash credit to the extent of 24,00,000/- in favour of the prime accused. It is alleged that accused nos.2 and 3 presented the document so that the cash credit facility could be given to the prime accused. The learned Advocate submits that the petitioner issued the certificate based on the documents as supplied and also based on the available records of the Registration Office at Barasat. He contends that the whole issue as against the present petitioner boils down to a document that he missed. It was a registered power of attorney as recorded in book no.3, which according to Section 57(2) of the Registration Act, can only be inspected by the parties executing such instrument or by their agents. The learned Advocate submits that the petitioner could not look into such a document and therefore, it could not form a part of his search report. The learned Advocate submits that no prima facie case is made out against the present petitioner as would be evident from a plain reading of the First 2 Information Report and the charge sheet. He further contends that any further continuation of the impugned proceeding shall be an abuse of the process of Court.
Let the petitioner serve a copy of this application upon the State through the learned Public Prosecutor and upon the added opposite party by speed post with acknowledgment due, within a week. An affidavit of service to that effect shall be filed on the next date of hearing.
Let this matter appear under the heading 'Contested Application' two weeks hence.
The operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed so far as the present petitioner is concerned for a period of six weeks from this date.
The parties shall be at liberty to pray for extension or modification or vacating of the interim order upon notice to the other side.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied to the parties expeditiously, if applied for.
(Jay Sengupta, J.)