Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 81 (CAL)

Rajendra Kumar Singh v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2010-02-01

ASHIM KUMAR ROY

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. THE petitioner is the defacto-complainant of Bhadreshwar Police Station Case No. 267/07 under Sections 143/341/323/325/506/307 of the Indian Penal Code. THE said First Information Report lodged by the petitioner ultimately gave rise to Sessions Trial No. 19 of 2009, which is now pending for trial before the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Chandannagore. Because of the absence of the present petitioner on the date fixed for his examination during the trial, the Learned Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Chandannagore issued warrant of arrest against him. Hence, this criminal revision. 2. HEARD Mr. Tarique Quasimuddin, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Sobhendu Sekhar Roy, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State. Perused the materials on record. It appears that the said First Information Report was lodged in the year 2007 by the present petitioner as the Senior President (Works) of R.D.B. Textiles Ltd., Bhadreshwar following a fighting between two groups of workers. It further appears it is the case of the petitioner in the meantime the petitioner has left his job with RDB Textile Ltd., Bhadreshwar and joined a new company, viz., Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Company Ltd. at Kanpur. After joining the new company he had no touch with his former employer and as a result he was not aware about the current status of the aforesaid trial. However, when he came to know about the issuance of warrant of arrest, the petitioner on 14.09.2009 took all necessary steps for appearance before the trial Court but unfortunately on that day his wife suddenly taken seriously ill and as a result he became busy with her medical treatments and could not attend Court and the Learned Court issued non-bailable warrant of arrest against him. It is submitted that his absence is wholly bona fide and unintentional and prayed that the said warrant of arrest be set aside. 3. NOW, having heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties, I direct the impugned order of warrant of arrest shall remain stayed for a period of two weeks and in the meantime if petitioner surrenders in Court, the Learned Trial Court shall recall the warrant of arrest. 3. NOW, having heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties, I direct the impugned order of warrant of arrest shall remain stayed for a period of two weeks and in the meantime if petitioner surrenders in Court, the Learned Trial Court shall recall the warrant of arrest. The Learned Trial Court is further directed thereafter to fix the schedule of the trial and the date for his examination and on the date so fixed for his examination the petitioner must be present in Court for his evidence. I make it clear, if the petitioner does not appear in Court within the stipulated period as aforesaid, the warrant of arrest shall be restored and revived and the Learned Trial Court shall have the liberty to proceed against him in accordance with law. In addition to above if on the date fixed for recording of evidence, the petitioner is found again absent in such case the Trial Court shall have the liberty to take such legal steps against him as it may think fit and proper. This criminal revisional application thus stands disposed of. Criminal Section is directed to deliver urgent Photostat certified copy of this Judgment to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.