Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Raj Kumar Jadav vs Unknown on 18 January, 2019
Author: Jay Sengupta
Bench: Jay Sengupta
1 8.01.2019
CRA 638 of 2018 CRAN 3319 of 2018 Ct. No. 29 In the matter of:- Raj Kumar Jadav ...appellant Mr. Swapan Kumar Dutt.
...for the appellant.
Mr. Pratick Bose ...for the State.
The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the delay in preferring this appeal has been explained in paragraph 8 of the application for condonation of delay. I have perused the application for condonation of delay and after hearing the learned Advocates for the appellant and the State and after going through the explanation given, I am satisfied with the same. Accordingly, the delay of 14 days in preferring this appeal is condoned.
The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that this is a case where the present appellant has been convicted for abating an offence of rape. He submits that actually this is a case of rape involving sexual intercourse by giving a promise to marry and the appellant is only an employee of a hotel where the couple used to frequent. According to the learned Counsel even no prima facie case is made out against the present appellant so far as the alleged offence is concerned.
The appeal is admitted.
Call for the records of the case. Issue usual notices. The realization of the fine imposed shall remain stayed during pendency of the appeal.
The appellant is granted liberty to pray for suspension of sentence upon notice to the State.
The application being CRAN 3319 of 2018 is disposed of. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be given to the parties expeditiously, if applied for.
2(Jay Sengupta, J.)