S. P. TALUKDAR, J. ( 1 ) THE present case has a strange, and, perhaps painful, background. It throws challenges to our criminal justice delivery system in more than one ways. ( 2 ) THIS is directed against the order dated 21. 3. 2006 passed by the learned sessions Judge, Howrah in S. T. No. 44 of 2005 thereby allowing the prayer for stay of the proceeding on a petition filed on behalf of the accused persons/opposite parties allegedly without complying with the specific direction of the learned division Bench of this Court in order dated 28. 11. 2005 in C. R. M. No. 8773 of 2005. ( 3 ) GRIEVANCES of the petitioner, as ventilated in the present application, may briefly be stated as follows: on 18. 02. 2002 at about 1/1. 30 p. m. when the son of the petitioner, Netai, since deceased, was getting ready for bath, 2/3 persons in civil dress without disclosing their identity as police personnel took him with them. After prolonged search, Netai was found in the Bally Police Station lock-up with bleeding injuries. Subsequently, police of Singur Police Station informed the family members that Netia had died in the Bally Police Station lock-up. Post-mortem examination over the deadbody was held behind the back of the petitioner. After getting the deadbody of Netai, his family members including the present petitioner found marks of injury in several on the deadbody. ( 4 ) THE petitioner filed a petition of complaint on 25. 6. 2002 under sections 342/343/330/331/302/120b read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code before the learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah, against the opposite parties. The said case was registered as Complaint Case No. 792c of 2002. The learned Court fixed 1. 7. 2002 as the date for evidence. 15 witnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioner including herself, doctors as well as police personnel. ( 5 ) SEVERAL papers and documents including post-mortem report as well as various photographs of the victim indicating marks of injury on his person were exhibited. The learned Court by order dated 5. 8. 2004, after being satisfied that a prima facie case was established, directed issuance of warrant of arrest against the opposite parties. ( 6 ) IT could be found during the examination of the witnesses that there were interpolations in the lock-up register of the Bally Police Station. The learned Court by order dated 5. 8. 2004, after being satisfied that a prima facie case was established, directed issuance of warrant of arrest against the opposite parties. ( 6 ) IT could be found during the examination of the witnesses that there were interpolations in the lock-up register of the Bally Police Station. The opposite parties/accused persons behind the back of the petitioner obtained order of anticipatory bail from the learned Court of Sessions Judge, Howrah, on 24. 9. 2004. One of the said accused persons, namely, Srimanta Banerjee, moved a revisional application before the High Court for quashing of the proceeding, which was registered as C. R. R. No. 375 of 2005. The said revisional application was dismissed by the learned Single Bench of this Court by order dated 22. 3. 2005. The learned Single Bench of this Court while dismissing the application directed the learned Sessions Judge, Howrah, to proceed with the trial with utmost expedition by retaining the case in his own file. Against the order of anticipatory bail dated 24. 09. 2004, an application for cancellation of the said order was filed and the same was registered as C. R. M. No. 8217 of 2004. The learned Division Bench of this Court by order dated 28. 04. 2005 set aside the order of anticipatory bail dated 24. 09. 2004. At the time of hearing of the said matter on 21. 04. 2005, the learned Division Bench found that several original documents, relating to the enquiry of unnatural death of Netai Das under section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were in the custody of the accused persons. The learned Division Bench took custody of those documents and this was reflected in the order dated 21. 4. 2005 passed by Their Lordships. ( 7 ) AS the accused persons did not surrender, the learned Sessions Judge, howrah, directed issuance of warrant of arrest, which was followed by issuance of WPA. The accused persons moved special leave petition before the Hon'ble supreme Court against the judgement and order dated 28. 4. 2005 passed by the High Court, Calcutta, and the Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 1. 9. 2005 dismissed the said special leave petition. The accused were, thus, left with no choice and surrendered before the learned Sessions Judge, Howrah, on 28. 9. 2005 and were taken into custody. 4. 2005 passed by the High Court, Calcutta, and the Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 1. 9. 2005 dismissed the said special leave petition. The accused were, thus, left with no choice and surrendered before the learned Sessions Judge, Howrah, on 28. 9. 2005 and were taken into custody. Bail applications were moved, which were rejected first by order dated 30. 9. 2005 and, thereafter, by order dated 28. 10. 2005. The accused, Srimanta Banerjee, moved an application under section 439 of the code of Criminal Procedure before this Court. Learned Division Bench of this court by order dated 28. 11. 2005 while dismissing application for bail observed as follows: "to avoid the picture of a long drawn story, it will be suffice to mention that all the police personnel were refused bail by the learned Sessions Judge, who after considering the relevant materials, passed the rejection order and thought it fit that the trial should be conducted keeping the accused persons in custody. " ( 8 ) THE learned Division Bench further directed the learned Sessions Judge to frame charge within 7 days from the date of passing of the order and to proceed with the examination of the witnesses on day-to-day basis and to ensure completion of the trial within a period of two months. The learned Judge fixed the matter for consideration of charge on 21. 11. 2005 and, thereafter, on 12. 12. 2005. The other three accused persons also moved applications for bail before this Court, which were registered as CRM No. 9287 of 2005 and CRM no. 9376 of 2005. At the time of hearing of the said applications, the Division bench of this Court, being presided over by the Hon'ble Chief Justice passed suo motu order on 12. 12. 2005 directing the Superintendent of Police, Howrah, to immediately see that the offence is registered and investigated. In view of the direction of this Court, Bally P. S. Case No. 316 of 2005 dated 22. 12. 2005 under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, was started. The accused persons then filed an application before the learned Sessions Judge, Howrah, on 2. 1. 2006 with a prayer for invoking the provisions of section 210 of the Code of Criminal procedure. The learned Court fixed the matter for hearing on 20. 1. 2006 and, thereafter, on 31. 1. 2006. Hearing took place on several dates. The accused persons then filed an application before the learned Sessions Judge, Howrah, on 2. 1. 2006 with a prayer for invoking the provisions of section 210 of the Code of Criminal procedure. The learned Court fixed the matter for hearing on 20. 1. 2006 and, thereafter, on 31. 1. 2006. Hearing took place on several dates. By order dated 21. 3. 2006 the learned Sessions Judge, Howrah, allowed the application dated 2. 1. 2006 and deferred the proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 44 of 2005 till submission of report of investigation in connection with Bally P. S. Case No. 316 of 2005 dated 22. 2. 2005. The learned Sessions Judge by the said order dated 21. 3. 2006 gave directions for expediting investigation and submitting of report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah. ( 9 ) BEING aggrieved by the said order dated 21. 3. 2006, the petitioner filed the instant application with a prayer for setting aside of the said order. ( 10 ) MR. Roy, appearing as learned Counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset referred to the backdrop of the present case. In fact, order dated 28. 11. 2005 passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in C. R. M. No. 8773 of 2005 as well as the order dated 15. 12. 2005 passed by another learned division Bench of this Court in C. R. M. No. 9287 of 2005 sufficiently reflect the gravity of the alleged offences and ventilate anxiety for delivering justice. ( 11 ) IT was submitted by Mr. Roy that the complaint case, which was started by the present petitioner, Smt. Ashoka Das, reached a stage where it did not deserve any interference in the matter of its progress. Mr. Roy submitted that the petition, which was filed on behalf of the opposite parties, which was practically in the nature of an application under section 210 of the Code of criminal Procedure, is a misconceived one. Section 210 of the Code reads as follows: "210. Mr. Roy submitted that the petition, which was filed on behalf of the opposite parties, which was practically in the nature of an application under section 210 of the Code of criminal Procedure, is a misconceived one. Section 210 of the Code reads as follows: "210. Procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence.- (1) When in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report (hereinafter referred to as a complaint case), it is made to appear to the Magistrate, during the course of the inquiry or trial held by him, that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence which is the subject-matter of the inquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such inquiry or trial and call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation. (2) If a report is made by the Investigating Police Officer under section 173 and on such report cognizance of any offence is taken by the Magistrate against any person who is an accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate shall inquire into or try together the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report as if both the cases were instituted on a police report. (3) If the police report does not relate to any accused in the complaint case or if the Magistrate does not take cognizance of any offence on the police report, he shall proceed with the inquiry or trial, which was stayed by him, in accordance with the provisions of this Code. " ( 12 ) REFERRING to the said provision of law it was contended that the facts and circumstances of the present case do not attract section 210 of the Code of criminal Procedure at all since the case under reference is now before the learned Court of Sessions awaiting trial whereas the police case is under investigation. No doubt, the sessions case under reference was instituted otherwise than on a police report. Question of any enquiry or trial of the said case by Magistrate cannot arise. True, an investigation over the mysterious death of the victim, Netai Das, had been started by Bally Police Station as per direction of the learned Division Bench of this Court. No doubt, the sessions case under reference was instituted otherwise than on a police report. Question of any enquiry or trial of the said case by Magistrate cannot arise. True, an investigation over the mysterious death of the victim, Netai Das, had been started by Bally Police Station as per direction of the learned Division Bench of this Court. It is also admitted that the said case is now under investigation. Mr. Sudipto Moitra, learned Counsel being assisted by Mr. Bagchi, submits that the principle of law which follows section 210 of Cr. PC must be applied to the pending sessions case as well. It was submitted that having regard to the definition of "magistrate" in the General clauses Act, it cannot be said that for some specific purposes a Court of Sessions cannot be construed as a Court of Magistrate. Mr. Bagchi referring to the decision in the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs. V. Krishnaswami Naidu and anr. , reported in AIR 1979 SC 1255 , submitted that a Special Judge under the criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952 can exercise the power conferred on a magistrate under section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The said decision, however, was in the context of the power to authorize detention of the accused in the custody of the police under section 167 of the Code. The principle, as discussed in the said decision, cannot have any manner of application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In my opinion, it will be an absurd stretching of the meaning of the word "magistrate" if section 210 of the Code is sought to be applied to the facts and circumstances of the present sessions' case. Admittedly, there is no inquiry or trial before the learned Court of magistrate and what was sought to be stayed is a sessions trial. Mr. Roy appearing as the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the case under reference was termed as a complaint case, subsequently it changed its complexion and was converted into a sessions case with the State of West bengal representing the prosecution. Mere fact that an investigation was. directed to be conducted by the learned Division Bench of this Court does not bring about any change in the complexion. Mere fact that an investigation was. directed to be conducted by the learned Division Bench of this Court does not bring about any change in the complexion. There is no reason whatsoever for widening the scope of section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a manner, which can permit or authorise staying of the trial of the sessions' case on the ground of pendency of investigation of the police case. ( 13 ) MR. Moitra appearing on behalf of two of the private opposite parties categorically submitted that better appreciation of evidence demands that the trial of the sessions' case under reference must await for the result of the investigation of the police case. According to him, it will be in the best interest of justice. In this context Mr. Bagchi sought to take recourse to section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ( 14 ) MR. Bagchi appearing as learned Counsel for two other private parties joined Mr. Moitra and submitted that to avoid conflicting decision and multiplicity of proceedings, there is need for awaiting the result of investigation of the police case. It was submitted that in the context of section 210 of the code, the Court of Magistrate impliedly included the Court of Sessions as well. It was further submitted by Mr. Bagchi that our administration of justice demands uniformity and this impliedly approves applicability of section 210 of the Code even in the context of the sessions case under reference. Mr. Bagchi also submitted that section 309 of the Code gives ample power to the learned court of Sessions Judge, Howrah, in adjourning or postponing the trial of the case while directing expeditious investigation of the case instituted on a police report. ( 15 ) FOR the sake of convenience, section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is reproduced hereinbelow: "309. Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings.- (1) In every inquiry or trial the proceedings shall be held as expeditiously as possible, and in particular, when the examination of witnesses has once begun, the same shall be continued from day-to-day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the Court finds the adjournment of the same beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded. (2) If the Court after taking cognizance of an offence, or commencement of trial, finds it necessary or advisable to postpone the commencement of, or adjourn, any inquiry or trial, it may, from time to time, for reasons to be recorded, postpone or adjourn the same on such terms as it thinks fit, for such time as it considers reasonable, and may by a warrant remand the accused if in custody: provided that no Magistrate shall remand an accused person to custody under this section for a term exceeding fifteen days at a time: provided further that when witnesses are in attendance no adjournment or postponement shall be granted, without examining them, except for special reasons to be recorded in writing: provided also that no adjournment shall be granted for the purpose only of enabling the accused person to show cause against the sentence proposed to be imposed on him. Explanation 1.- If sufficient evidence has been obtained to raise a suspicion that the accused may have committed an offence, and it appears likely that further evidence may be obtained by a remand, this is a reasonable cause for a remand. Explanation 2.- The terms on which an adjournment or postponement may be granted include, in appropriate cases, the payment of costs by the prosecution or the accused. " ( 16 ) IT is significant to note that sub-section (1) of section 309 of the Code rather reflects the anxiety for expeditious disposal of all the proceedings. ( 17 ) SECTION 309 of the Code deals with "power to postpone or adjourn proceedings". Section 309 (1) of the Code lays emphasis on holding trial as expeditiously as possible. When the examination of witnesses has once begun, the same shall be continued from day-to-day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined. There is no doubt that such provision reflects anxiety for expeditious trial. But is does not make the Court helpless when adjournment beyond the following day is found necessary and then also, reasons for such adjournment are to be recorded. ( 18 ) ACCORDING to Mr. Bagchi, section 309 (2) of the Code leaves no scope for controversy as it gives the Court the power to postpone or adjourn an enquiry or trial for sometime, as the Court considers reasonable. Here again, one cannot be unmindful to the explanation given to the said section. ( 18 ) ACCORDING to Mr. Bagchi, section 309 (2) of the Code leaves no scope for controversy as it gives the Court the power to postpone or adjourn an enquiry or trial for sometime, as the Court considers reasonable. Here again, one cannot be unmindful to the explanation given to the said section. Explanation 1 to section 309 of the Code clarifies the position. When sufficient evidence has been obtained to raise a suspicion that the accused may have committed an offence, and it appears likely that further evidence may be obtained by a remand, this is a reasonable cause for a remand. Thus, reasonableness for adjourning or postponing trial is to be guided in the aforesaid context. ( 19 ) QUESTION may arise as to why the trial of the sessions' case, which is otherwise ready should unnecessarily wait for result of investigation of the police case. ( 20 ) INVESTIGATION of the said case may ultimately result in submission of chargesheet or, may be, it will end in final report. It is neither possible, nor desirable to predict its result. Whatever is the outcome, law must take its own course. The Code has sufficient elasticity to take care of such situation. But why should the present case, which seems to be ready and at the stage of consideration of charge after long drawn out legal battle, be unnecessarily thrown into an ocean of uncertainty? It is not understood how earlier direction of this Court in the matter of disposal of the case could escape the notice of learned Sessions Judge. ( 21 ) CONSIDERING all such facts and materials and having regard to the discussion made earlier, I am inclined to hold that the order under challenge suffers from misappreciation of facts as well as law and so, is liable to be set aside. ( 22 ) THE case being C. R. R. No. 1287 of 2006 be, accordingly, allowed. Order dated 21. 3. 2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Howrah, in S. T. No. 44 of 2005 be set aside. The learned Sessions Judge, Howrah, is directed to fix up a date for consideration of charge within a period of one week from the date of communication of this order. Order dated 21. 3. 2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Howrah, in S. T. No. 44 of 2005 be set aside. The learned Sessions Judge, Howrah, is directed to fix up a date for consideration of charge within a period of one week from the date of communication of this order. And, if charges are framed, the learned Trial Court must fix up consecutive dates for evidence so as to ensure completion of trial within two months from the date of framing of charge. ( 23 ) CRIMINAL Department is directed to supply urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, to the learned Counsel for the parties, after due compliance with the legal formalities. Appeal allowed.