Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 837 (CAL)

Ratan Das v. The State of West Bengal

2010-07-20

KALIDAS MUKHERJEE

body2010
Judgment : KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, J: 1. This is an application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure assailing the order dated 11.6.2010 passed by learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court at Kolkata in connection with complaint case No. 169 dated 01.7.2005, Kakdwip P.S. Case No. 93 dated 04.7.2005, B.G.R. No. 892 of 2005 corresponding to Sessions Case No. 81 of 2009, S.T. No. 1(1) of 2010 under Sections 120B/387/376/507 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the petitioner, in short, is that he was detained in Jail custody on and from 05.7.2005 to 08.12.2005 and after release from Jail custody the petitioner filed an application before the learned Trial Judge at Diamond Harbour on 01.7.2006 with a prayer for supply of the copy of all documents which were not supplied to him. After hearing, the learned Trial Judge directed the prosecution to supply copies of documents, if not already done, to the accused persons. On 18.11.2006 the prosecution filed a petition before the learned Trial Judge with a prayer for some more time for supply copies of documents to the accused persons and the learned Judge was pleased to direct the prosecution to supply copies of the documents to the accused by 20.2.2007. The accused filed a Revisional Application before the Hon’ble Court being CRR No. 305 of 2006 on February 13, 2007 for the transfer of the instant sessions case from the Court of Additional Sessions Judge at Diamond Harbour to any other Court and on contest the Hon’ble Court was pleased to transfer the Sessions Case to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Fast Track Court at Baruipur. An application was moved for the supply of documents which were not supplied by the prosecution to the accused persons even after specific direction from the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Diamond Harbour. The petitioner has stated in paragraph 10 of the instant application about the particulars of the documents which, allegedly, have not been supplied by the prosecution. 3. On 30.9.2008 the Hon’ble Court passed an order for the transfer of the said case to the Court of learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Kolkata. The petitioner has stated in paragraph 10 of the instant application about the particulars of the documents which, allegedly, have not been supplied by the prosecution. 3. On 30.9.2008 the Hon’ble Court passed an order for the transfer of the said case to the Court of learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Kolkata. On 30.4.2010 the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Kolkata heard two petitions dated 08.1.2010 in presence of both sides and after hearing directed the prosecution to supply the copies of documents according to the earlier order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Diamond Harbour on 01.7.2006 and 18.11.2006. In spite of the order dated 30.4.2010 the prosecution could not supply the documents to the accused persons, but, the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court mentioned in his order dated 14.5.2010 that the prosecution have supplied documents to the defence. The petitioner preferred the Revisional Application to the Hon’ble High Court immediately after recording the evidence of P.W. 1, but, the Hon’ble Court was pleased to reject the Revisional Application due to non-supply of certified copy. But, the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court mentioned in his order dated 14.5.2010 that the petitioner did not prefer any Revisional Application before the Hon’ble Court about the recording of the said evidence of P.W. 1. On 10.6.2010 the petitioner again filed a petition before the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Kolkata with a prayer for supply of copy of documents and also praying for adjournment due to non-supply of the same. But by the learned Trial Judge without supplying the copy fixed 11.6.2010 for examination of P.W.1. On 11.6.2010 the petitioner filed a petition before the learned Trial Judge with a prayer for supply of copy of documents and also for adjournment during the pendency of the CRR 1672 of 2010 pending before the Hon’ble Court. But, the learned Trial Judge has not considered the prayer and without supplying the copy started cross-examination of P.W. 1. The said Revisional Application being CRR 1672 of 2010 was dismissed by the Hon’ble Court on 15.6.2010. Being aggrieved by the order dated 11.6.2010 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Session Court, Kolkata the petitioner preferred this Revisional Application praying for supply the copy of the documents to the defence. 4. The said Revisional Application being CRR 1672 of 2010 was dismissed by the Hon’ble Court on 15.6.2010. Being aggrieved by the order dated 11.6.2010 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Session Court, Kolkata the petitioner preferred this Revisional Application praying for supply the copy of the documents to the defence. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the documents referred to in paragraph 10, copies of which were not, allegedly, supplied to the defence. It is submitted that without the copy of the documents it is not possible for the accused to cross-examine the witness. 5. From the order dated 01.7.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Diamond Harbour it appears that there was non-supply of the copy of FSL report only. From the order dated 18.11.2006 it appears that the prosecution filed a petition praying for time to supply the copy of certain documents to the accused. From the order dated 30.4.2010 passed by learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Kolkata it appears that the learned Advocate appearing for the prosecution submitted that the entire documents on which the prosecution relied upon were already supplied to the defence at the time of the commitment of the case. 6. Mr. Mullick appearing for the State submits that earlier such an application was filed bearing CRR 1672 of 2010 on the selfsame ground which was rejected and this application is not maintainable. 7. The learned Chief Judge vide order dated 14.5.2010 recorded the submission of the prosecution that the copies of the documents were already supplied to the defence and the report of the FSL will be supplied to the defence when the same will be received by the prosecution from the FSL department. On 11.6.2010 the learned Chief Judge recorded that in compliance with the earlier directions of the Court, the prosecution supplied copies of all documents except FSL report as the same was not received by the prosecution. 8. From the circumstances stated above it is clear that the FSL report was not received by the prosecution and the prosecution submitted before the learned Court below that after the receipt of the said FSL report, the copy thereof will be supplied to the defence. Excepting FSL report all other documents were supplied as it appears from the materials on record. 9. Excepting FSL report all other documents were supplied as it appears from the materials on record. 9. It appears that another Revisional Application bearing CRR 1672 of 2010 was filed by the petitioner praying for supply of copy of documents wherein it was also observed that FSL report will be supplied by the defence when the same will be received by the prosecution from the said department. It was also observed that the accused/petitioner adopted dilatory tactics with the sole object of delaying the Trial of the case pending against him and the Revisional Application was dismissed by the Hon’ble Court. 10. Having heard the learned Counsels for the parties and after going through the materials on record it is clear that the prosecution assured that after the receipt of the FSL report, the copy of the same would be supplied to the defence. Excepting FSL report all other documents have already been supplied to the accused. 11. There is no merit in this application and the same stands dismissed. 12. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Court below immediately. 13. Urgent Photostat certified copy, if applied for, be handed over to the parties as early as possible.