Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 549 (CAL)

Monirul Islam v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2005-08-22

P.N.SINHA

body2005
Judgment : 1. This revisional application under section 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner praying for direction upon the learned Magistrate at Barasat for expeditious disposal of G. R. Case No. 1899 of 1996 arising out of Rajarhat P.S. Case No. 455 of 1996 dated 25.12.1996. 2. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that though the FIR was registered on 25.12.96 and the charge was submitted before the learned SDJM, Barasat on 12.8.97 the trial is pending for several years and up-to-date only one witness has been examined. The pendency of the case for such a long time is causing mental agony to the petitioner. Accordingly, direction may be given to the learned Magistrate for expeditious disposal of the said case. 3. Learned Advocate appearing for the State submitted that necessary direction may be given to the learned Magistrate as it is evident that though several dates for evidence have passed, only one witness has been examined so far. 4. After hearing the submission of the learned Advocates for the parties and perusing papers, I find that the Rajarhat P.S. Case No. 455 of 1996 dated 25.12.96 was started on the basis of FIR lodged by the Secretary, Jatragachhi Pranabananda High School, P.S. Rajarhat. It is evident that after completing investigation, the police submitted chargesheet under sections 468/471/420/120B of IPC against this accused petitioner and the learned SDJM, Barasat received the same on 12.8.97. Thereafter nearly three years passed in preparing the copies of relevant papers and finally on 30.3.2000 copies were supplied to the accused petitioner and the case was transferred to the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Barasat for disposal. Thereafter few dates passed for consideration of charge and finally by an order dated 12.3.2001, charges were framed against this petitioner. Thereafter four years have passed and only one witness has been examined, namely, P.W.1, Dilip Kumar Pal on 12.2.2002. Considering the long pendency of the case, I think that the learnad Magistrate should be given direction to make necessary endeavour for disposal of the case as expeditiously as possible. 5. Thereafter four years have passed and only one witness has been examined, namely, P.W.1, Dilip Kumar Pal on 12.2.2002. Considering the long pendency of the case, I think that the learnad Magistrate should be given direction to make necessary endeavour for disposal of the case as expeditiously as possible. 5. Accordingly, I dispose of the revisional application by directing the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Barasat to dispose of the G.R. Case No. 1899/96 now pending in his Court which arose out of Rajarhat P.S. Case No. 455 dated 25.12.96 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six months from the date of communication of this order. 6. Criminal Section is directed to send a copy of this order to the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Barasat for information and necessary action. 7. Criminal Section is directed to supply certified copy of this order to the learned Advocates for the parties, if applied for. Petition allowed.