Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 801 (CAL)

CHAITANNA MAHATO v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2006-12-18

PRAVENDU NARAYAN SINHA

body2006
Before Pravendu Narayan Sinha, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned Advocate for the petitioner. ( 2 ) AFTER hearing the submission of Mr. Mukherjee, the learned advocate for the petitioner and going through the entire order dated 9. 11. 06 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Purulia-cum-Judge, special Court (I. E. Act) and the procedure adopted by him in the matter. I am of the opinion that this matter should be disposed of without hearing the State. ( 3 ) IT is evident that on the basis of a complaint/f. I. R. lodged by station Manager Bagmundi Group Electric Supply, Bagmundi P. S. Case no. 26 dated 20. 10. 06 under Section 135 (1) (a) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (Electric G. R. Case No. 48/06) was started against the petitioner and the f. I. R. was forwarded to the Court of the learned CJM on 23. 10. 06 and the learned Magistrate transferred the same to the learned Special Judge who received the same on 30. 10. 06. The learned Special Judge fixed 10. 11. 06 as the date of receipt of report in final form. In the meantime on 31. 10. 06, the Station Manager, Bagmundi Group Electric Supply raised a provisional bill of Rs. 1,823/- in the name of the petitioner which was paid by the petitioner on the very same day as it appears from annexure P-1. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared before the learned Special Judge on 9. 11. 06 and filed an application praying for bail and also produced the receipt showing payment of dues to the W. B. S. E. B. While considering the bail application, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (I. E. Act)adopted an unique procedure which is unknown in law. As report in final form was received by that time, the learned Judge decided to frame charge though it was not the scheduled date. The record was put up on the prayer of accused/petitioner on 9. 11. 06 who prayed for bail. Date of consideration of charge was not fixed and the petitioner was not given time to consult his lawyer for preparation of his defence and practically no opportunity of hearing during stage of charge was given. ( 4 ) I fail to under stand wherefrom the learned Judge found that the accused confessed his guilt. 06 who prayed for bail. Date of consideration of charge was not fixed and the petitioner was not given time to consult his lawyer for preparation of his defence and practically no opportunity of hearing during stage of charge was given. ( 4 ) I fail to under stand wherefrom the learned Judge found that the accused confessed his guilt. The learned Special Judge observed that he has no hesitation to allow him bail. But I find that the learned Judge rejected the prayer for bail. In my opinion, payment of the provisional bill raised by the WBSEB cannot at all be treated as confession when there was no paper or document before him to show that the accused confessed his guilt and there was no confessional statement recorded under Section 164 of the cr. P. C. There was no prayer also from the investigating authority indicating therein that the accused/petitioner wanted to make a confessional statement. I also find that the charge was not framed in true sence and on the date of hearing of the bail petition. I wonder how the learned Judge could frame charge when the accused did not go through copies supplied and could not prepare defence. The learned Judge completely on erroneous knowledge of law disposed of the case and convicted the petitioner. Learned Judge did not consider provisions of Sections 126 and 152 of the Electricity Act and did not consider that after payment of dues of W. B. S. E. B. as raised by them there is provision of compounding offence. Learned Judge also did not consider that in view of restriction imposed by Section 151 of the electricity Act, Court cannot take cognizance on the basis of report in final form submitted by police in view of a Division Bench decision of this Court in Ranjit Kumar Bag v. State of West Bengal reported in (2006)1 C Cr LR (Cal) 334. ( 5 ) THE entire procedure adopted by the learned Special Judge is against principles of law, patently illegal and perverse and being so the order dated 9. 11. 06 passed by the learned Special Judge cum Additional sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Purulia is set aside. ( 5 ) THE entire procedure adopted by the learned Special Judge is against principles of law, patently illegal and perverse and being so the order dated 9. 11. 06 passed by the learned Special Judge cum Additional sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Purulia is set aside. The learned Additional sessions Judge, Special Court will proceed with the matter from the stage of hearing of the bail application in accordance with law and I direct the learned Judge to go through the provisions of Cr. P. C. afresh relating to chapters of trial before Sessions Court, before Magistrates in warrant cases as well as provisions of Indian Electricity Act so that he can understand what is the procedural law relating to trial. ( 6 ) I am told by Mr. Mukherjee that the petitioner was granted interim bail by the learned Special Judge after the conviction and the interim bail granted to the petitioner is accordingly confirmed. ( 7 ) CRIMINAL section is directed to supply certified copy of this order to the petitioner, if applied for. ( 8 ) THE learned Registrate General of this Court is requested to look into the matter and consider whether such an officer would be permitted to continue with enooying sessions power and he is directed to place the entire matter along with copy of order Jated 9. 11. 06. passed by the said learned judge before the Administrative Committee of this Court for consideration whether it would be safe to allow him enjoy sessions power, special power etc.