Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

49. A side argument of Mr. Mazumder too requires to be dealt with here. He has taken exception to the WBHRC's observation that section 66A(b) of the 2000 Act has been included by way of an afterthought. Although it appears that PJPS FIR No. 50 dated April 12, 2012 was registered, inter alia, under section 66A(b) of the 2000 Act, which is also a cognizable offence, the ACP in course of recording of his statement before the WBHRC on April 5, 2012 commented that "of the Sections lodged against the arrestees", only section 509 IPC was a cognizable offence and the others were not. It is difficult to imagine that the ACP had made such a statement without ascertaining whether section 66A(b) of the 2000 Act was cognizable or not. However, the statement of the ACP gives an impression that section 66A(b) may not have been there at the relevant time or else he would have noticed it. This could be one possible reason for the WBHRC observing that section 66A(b) of the 2000 Act was incorporated by way of an afterthought. In any event, nothing substantial turns on it. I hold this to be nothing but a desperate attempt of Mr. Mazumder to pick holes in the inquiry report of the WBHRC, not having found any other substantial point to defend the respondents.