Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 387 (CAL)

Mahadeb Biswas v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2008-04-09

Ashim Kumar Roy

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. THIS application is directed against an order of issuance of warrant of arrest passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, ranaghat, Nadia in connection with S. C. No. 20 (9) of 2004. 2. MR. Dipanjan Chatterjee, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted before this Court that due to some communication gap the petitioner was not timely informed by his Learned Counsel about the date fixed for his appearance before the Trial Court and consequently the petitioner without having any intention to avoid the due process of law, could not be present in Court on the date so fixed and warrant of arrest was issued against him. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to face his trial by being present before the Trial Court and thus prays the warrant of arrest be set aside and the petitioner, who was on bail be permitted to remain on the same bail. On the other hand, Mr. Sobhendu Sekhar Roy, the learned advocate of the State pointed out before this Court that in the instant criminal revision the petitioner challenged the order dated 13th June, 2007 whereby the order of warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner and the same being hopelessly time barred, without any application for condonation of delay and delay being condoned, this criminal revisional application cannot be entertained and accordingly prays the instant criminal revisional application be dismissed. 3. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties. I have also carefully perused the materials on record and more particularly the order sheets relating to the Sessions Case No. 20 (9)04, now pending before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court I, Ranaghat, Nadia. It is true that the petitioner challenged the order of issuance of warrant of arrest passed on 13th of June, 2007. However, on perusal of the order sheets I find that on December 20, 2007 the date fixed for execution report, as no report was received, the Learned Judge made a fresh order directing issuance of warrant of arrest as well as the proclamation for attachment against the present petitioner Mahadeb Biswas and another. 4. However, on perusal of the order sheets I find that on December 20, 2007 the date fixed for execution report, as no report was received, the Learned Judge made a fresh order directing issuance of warrant of arrest as well as the proclamation for attachment against the present petitioner Mahadeb Biswas and another. 4. IT is well settled that while the High Court exercising its revisional jurisdiction, there is no embargo for it, to exercise such power suo motu in respect of any other order, which has been brought to its notice, without any formal application challenging the same when such exercise of power becomes essential to do the substantial justice. Thus, I am of the opinion in suo motu exercise of revisional jurisdiction the order dated December 20, 2007 whereby the learned Judge directed issuance of warrant of arrest as well as the proclamation of attachment issued against the present petitioner and another very well be interfered with in the instant criminal revision filed before this Court on February 28, 2008. Accordingly, I dispose of the instant criminal revisional application directing that the impugned order of warrant of arrest and the order of proclamation of attachment made on December 20, 2007 by the Learned additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court I, Ranaghat, Nadia in connection with S. C. No. 20 (9) of 2004 shall remain stayed for a period of five weeks and in the meantime if the petitioner surrenders before the Trial Court and make any prayer for bail the learned Judge shall consider his such prayer in accordance with law. I make it clear that in the event the petitioner fails to take steps in terms of my order as aforesaid the order of warrant of arrest shall be revived and restored and the Learned Judge shall have the liberty to take steps against the petitioner in accordance with law.