Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Smt. Arpita Guin vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 7 April, 2021
Author: Bibek Chaudhuri
Bench: Bibek Chaudhuri
Form J(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present :
The Hon'ble Justice Bibek Chaudhuri
CRR 1069 of 2020
With
CRAN 1 of 2020 (Old CRAN 3150 of 2020)
With
CRAN 2 of 2020
Smt. Arpita Guin
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
CRR 1070 of 2020
With
CRAN 1 of 2020 (Old CRAN 3151 of 2020)
Smt. Arpita Guin
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
CRR 1071 of 2020
With
CRAN 1 of 2020 (Old CRAN 3152 of 2020)
With
CRAN 2 of 2020
Smt. Arpita Guin & Anr.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
2
For the Petitioner : Md. Sabir Ahmed
Mr. Ali Ahsan Alamgir
Mr. M. Ali Naskar
Mr. Apan Saha
Mr. Shraman Sarkar
For Private Respondent : Mr. Indranil Roy
Mr. Sunit Kumar Roy
For the State : Mr. Swapan Banerjee
Ms. Purnima Ghosh
Heard on : 07.04.2021
Judgment On : 07.04.2021
Bibek Chaudhuri, J.
All the above numbered revisional applications are taken up together for hearing as the facts of the above mentioned three revisions are almost the same and the question of law involved in the said three applications is also identical.
Therefore, the revisional applications are disposed of by delivering common judgment as follows:-
The petitioner is an Assistant Teacher of Barhra High School. She is at present under suspension. She has lodged a complaint before the police against some teachers of the said school who are the 3 private opposite parties herein. On 15 th January, 2016 on the basis of which Kankartala P.S. Case No.06 of 2016 dated 29.01.2016 under Sections 341/342/354/323/506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code was initiated. Investigation of the said case pended in filing charge sheet. The case is pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Dubrajpur, Birbhum.
The fact of CRR 1071 of 2020 is that one Kanchan Adhikary, a teacher of the above named school filed complaint against the petitioner in which one Rajendra Prasad Dey, advocate represented the said Kanchan Adhikary. Subsequently, the said Rajendra Prasad Dey became Additional Public Prosecutor attached to the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate at Dubrajpur. After being the Additional Public Prosecutor he recused from the trial of G.R. Case No.27 of 2016 initiated at the instance of Kanchan Adhikary.
Be it mentioned here that the said Kanchan Adhikary is an accused in G.R. Case No.30 of 2016 initiated on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the petitioner.
It is alleged by the petitioner that as the said Rajendra Prasad Dey was an advocate for Kanchan Adhikary and accused in G.R. Case No.30 of 2016, he is not taking proper interest in proceeding with G.R. Case No.30 of 2016 before the learned Judicial Magistrate at Dubrajpur. The petitioner filed an application before the trial Court 4 praying for changing the learned A.P.P. The learned Judicial Magistrate requested the District Magistrate, Birbhum to change Sri Rajendra Prasad Dey from the case but till date the District Magistrate has not taken any step. Under the aforesaid fact situation the application for transfer of G.R. Case No.30 of 2016 and G.R. Case No.26 of 2016 is made by the petitioner.
On the previous date of hearing the learned P.P.-in-Charge was requested to obtain a report from the learned A.P.P., Sri Rajendra Prasad Dey. He submitted a report stating, inter alia, that he represents the State in G.R. Case No.30 of 2016 initiated on the basis of a written complaint made by the petitioner. He also stated in writing that previously he represented one of the accused namely Kanchan Adhikary who was the de facto complainant in G.R. Case No.27 of 2016. The said case was filed against the petitioner and after being appointed as A.P.P. he recused from the said case.
It is submitted by the learned advocate for the private opposite parties that when Sri Dey, learned A.P.P. has recused from G.R. Case No.27 of 2016 there is no impediment on his part to proceed with G.R. Case No.30 of 2016 on behalf of the State. It is also submitted by him that if the cases are transferred to any other Court outside Dubrajpur, the school will be automatically closed as the petitioner has made all the teachers of the school accused in her complaint. It is 5 submitted by the learned advocate for the opposite parties that in both the cases the District Magistrate, Birbhum may be instructed to change the Public Prosecutor so that there might not be any grievance of both the parties.
Fair and impartial justice delivery system is the constitutional mandate and the litigants expect fair trial in the Court of law. The proverb goes without saying that justice must not only be done but it appears to have been done, meaning thereby before the litigants and common people there must be an impression that impartial and fair justice is being imparted by a Court of law.
Bearing this time tested principle of natural justice and constitutional mandate let me now consider the factual situation of the matters in hand. It is not disputed that Sri Rajendra Prasad Dey is still continuing as A.P.P. in G.R. Case No.30 of 2016. The petitioner being the de facto complainant of the said case is not in a position to be confident with the learned A.P.P. because he appeared on behalf of one of the accused as a defence counsel before he was appointed as A.P.P. in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dubrajpur. It is not disputed that the said Kanchan Adhikary is an accused in G.R. Case No.30 of 2016.
Undisputedly, Dubrajpur is a very small place having a 'Chawki' Court there. The petitioner apprehends that her case may not be 6 conducted properly at Dubrajpur. Therefore, in my considered view if G.R. Case No.26 of 2016, G.R. Case No.27 of 2016 and G.R. Case No.30 of 2016 are transferred to the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suri for trial, nobody's interest will be hampered. In such case, the accused persons may be permitted to represent through their learned advocate under Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure except on the dates of identification of the accused persons and their examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
With the above order, all the three revisional applications along with all connected applications are disposed of by a common judgment.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.
( Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)