Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sk. Nasir Ali And Others vs The State Of West Bengal And Another on 7 September, 2015
Author: R.K. Bag
Bench: R.K. Bag
S/L.6. C.R.R. 1965 of 2015 September 7, 2015 With Bpg. CRAN 2445 of 2015 With CRAN 2789 of 2015 In the matter of : Sk. Nasir Ali and others.
...petitioners.
Versus The State of West Bengal and another ...opposite parties.
Mr. Sudipta Moitra, Mr. Siladitya Sanyal, Mr. Arindam Jana, Mr. Sougagta Banerjee.
...for the petitioners.
Mr. Ayan Basu.
...for the State.
Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Mr. Dipanjan Dutta, Md. Mansoor Alam.
...for the opposite party no.2.
Leave is granted to learned counsel for the petitioners to amend the cause title of the application for revision for deleting the name of the petitioner no.3, who is admittedly dead.
The petitioners have preferred this revision under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order dated May 30, 2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Purba Medinipur at Tamluk in Criminal Misc. Case no.1017 of 2015, by which learned Sessions Judge transferred the G.R. no.943 of 2000 from the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Contai to learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Tamluk.
It appears from the materials on record that the petitioners are facing trial before the court of learned Magistrate on the allegation of committing offence under Section 498A/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Admittedly, the opposite party no.2 who 2 started the criminal case against the petitioners happens to be the husband of petitioner no.1. The petitioner no.2 happens to be the brother-in-law, the petitioner no.4 happens to be the mother-in-law of the victim and the petitioner no.5 happens to be the wife of the petitioner no.2.
Mr. Sudipta Moitra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that all ten witnesses cited in the charge- sheet have already been examined by the prosecution before the trial court and the case is posted for examination of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Mr. Moitra further submits that the petitioners will face difficulty and much inconvenience if the case is transferred from Contai to Tamluk as the petitioners have been residing within the territorial jurisdiction of Contai Sub-Division. Mr. Moitra also submits that no fruitful purpose will be served by transferring the case from Contai to Tamluk when the evidence of the prosecution is closed and the case is posted for examination of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Mr. Ayan Basu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party/State submits that there is no justification in transferring the case from Contai to Tamluk at the fag end of hearing of the case.
Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 contends that there is specific allegation against the Assistant Public Prosecutor who conducted the case on behalf of the State before the court of learned Magistrate at Contai. Mr. Ganguly further submits that there is specific allegation against the bench clerk of the court of learned Magistrate at Contai and as such there was reasonable apprehension in the mind of the opposite party no.2 that she will not get justice from the Second Court of learned Judicial Magistrate at Contai where the criminal case is pending. According to Mr. Ganguly, there is inordinate delay in conclusion of trial of the criminal case in spite of specific direction given by the High Court 3 for disposal of the case within the specified period of time.
Without going into the merit of the allegation made on behalf of the opposite party no.2, I am of the view that there may not be any reasonable apprehension in the mind of the opposite party no.2 for getting fair justice if the criminal case is transferred from the Second Court of learned Magistrate at Contai to the Third Court of learned Judicial Magistrate at Contai. It will not be wise and prudent on my part to transfer the case from Contai to Tamluk when the case is at the fag end of hearing where all prosecution witnesses have been examined and the case is posted for examination of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
In view of my above findings, the order dated May 30, 2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Purba Medinipur at Tamluk in Criminal Case Misc. Case no.1017 of 2015 is modified to the extent that G.R. no.943 of 2000 is transferred from the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Contai to the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Contai with immediate effect. Learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Contai is directed to expedite the hearing of G.R. no.943 of 2000 and to dispose of the same as early as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of the order without granting any adjournment of hearing of the case to either of the parties except on extreme urgency.
Criminal revision and both the CRANs. are disposed of.
The department is directed to send down a copy of this order to the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Contai, learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Contai and learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Tamluk for favour of information and necessary action.
Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned counsel for the parties, upon compliance 4 of all formalities.
(R.K. Bag, J.)