Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Akd vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 15 February, 2019
Author: Subhasis Dasgupta
Bench: Subhasis Dasgupta
1
02 15.02.19 CRR 337 of 2019
Ct. no. 41
George Soren
akd Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
------------
Mr. Arnab Saha.
... For the Petitioner.
Mr. Ayan Basu, Mr. Pratik Bose.
... For the State.
The impugned order dated 13th December, 2018 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge at Alipurduar rejecting the bail of the revisionist accused in connection with a Criminal Appeal No. 09 of 2017 is the subject of assail in this case.
Admittedly the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate by a judgement and order dated 4th September, 2017 in connection with C.R. 622 of 2015 convicted the accused/ revisionist under Section 51(1) of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/-; in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one year.
An appeal was preferred challenging the aforesaid order before the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Alipurduar, which is still pending. The accused is admittedly in custody.
The learned Advocate for the revisionist has prayed for release of the convicted/revisionist on bail in an application of Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a case, where the revisionist/accused has already undergone detention for a period extending up to one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for that offence under the law.
From the case record it appears that the accused was brought arrested on 30th October, 2015 and subsequently was released on bail on 23rd December, 2015. The said order of bail was challenged before the learned Session Judge, Alipurduar, who cancelled the bail on 12th August, 2016. Ultimately after conclusion of the trial the accused was held convicted on 4th September, 2017 and was sentenced as already mentioned 2 hereinabove.
According to the revisionist, by this time he has already undergone custody for a period of 967 days, more than 2 years 8 months. The proposed punishment for the offence is for 5 years.
According to Mr. Ayan Basu, learned Advocate representing the State, the prayer for bail was previously cancelled by the Court below before the order of conviction was recorded.
True it is that the revisionist/accused till date has not approached the Court below persuading the Court to make proper application of 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the period already undergone having completed the period extending up to one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for that offence under the law.
The record of the Trial Court is presumably lying with the Appellate Court. The appeal has not yet been heard out.
In a situation like this, the purpose of justice would be sub-served if the instant revisional application is disposed of by the following direction:
The learned Appellate Court, before whom the appeal is pending, is directed to make proper application of 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure in accordance with law within one week from the date of communication of this order.
In the event if any application is filed by the revisionist/convicted/accused, the same shall be disposed of giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to both the parties of this case more particularly to the instant prosecution.
The revisional application, being CRR 337 of 23019, is thus disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied on priority basis.
( SUBHASIS DASGUPTA, J.) 3