Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 241 (CAL)

Prasant Kumar Daw v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2011-02-21

body2011
JUDGMENT Mrinal Kanti Sinha, J. 1. THIS revisional application under Section 401 read with Section 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner praying for an appropriate order and direction for expeditious trial of G.R. case No. 1666/2004 now pending before the court of learned 8th Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta. 2. IT is the case of the petitioner that he is the defacto-complainant of G.R. case No. 1666/2004 now pending before the Court of learned 8th Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta and the opposite parties No. 2 to 6 are the co-owners/ co-occupants of their ancestral property situated at 12B, Nanda Mullick Lane, Kolkatta - 700 006. In between 19.10.2004 and 27.10.2004 the opposite parties No. 2 to 6/accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy, trespassed into the rooms of the petitioner by breaking the padlock and committed theft of his household items worth about Rs. 80,000/-. On the basis of his application under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code complaint case No. C/1112/2004 before the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, arising out of Girish Park Police Station case No. 141 dated 11.12.2004 under Sections 448/454/380/120B of the Indian Penal Code, was registered, and Officer-in-charge of said police station was directed to investigate into the matter by the learned Court. The petitioner has appeared in the said case for about 23 days from 11.8.2005 to 25.3.2010, and the next date has been fixed on 7th May, 2010, for further cross-examination of P.W.-1 or the defacto-complainant. The opposite parties No. 2 to 6 duly appeared before the learned Court below, but they are taking time one after another on different grounds for which the cross-examination of P.W. -1 has not been completed. The petitioner along with his family members have been dispossessed by the opposite parties No. 2 to 6 and they are occupying the rooms of the petitioner as trespassers, and the learned Court below should be directed to conclude the trial of the said G.R. case No. 1666/2004 expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of passing of the order, otherwise the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and injury. It appears from the certified copy of the order dated 29.8.2005 of G.R. case No. 1666/2004 that on the basis of a complaint of the petitioner under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which was treated as First Information Report, Girish Park Police Station case No. 141 dated 11.12.2004 was started and police investigated into the case and submitted charge sheet against the accused persons under Sections 448/120B of the Indian Penal Code along with list of documents and cognizance was taken and summons was issued by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, fixing 10.01.2006 for S.R. and appearance. On 10.01.2006 accused persons were absent by petition and prayed for time. Then on 21.02.2006 of the accused persons were present and copy was supplied to them and date was fixed on 28.3.2006 for charge by the learned 8th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta to whom the said G.R. case was transferred, and vide order dated 20.12.2006 substance of accusation under Sections 448/120B of the Indian Penal code to the effect that in between 19.10.2004 and 27.10.2004 the accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy and thereby trespassed into the rooms of the complainant and took away some household items, was read over and explained to the accused persons by the learned Magistrate concerned to which they pleaded not guilty by saying “nirdosh” and claimed to be tried, and order was passed then for issuance of summons to C.S.Ws 1 to 6 fixing 13.02.2007 for evidence, and on 13.02. 2007 the accused persons and C.S.W ?1 was present and he was examined in part and his examination was deferred till 20.3.2007 for further evidence, and thereafter the hearing of the said G.R. case was adjourned from 20.3.2007 to 6.6.2007, 21.7.2007, 20.8.2007, 14.12.2007, 23.4.2008, 5.8.2008, 7.01.2009, 16.02.2009, 29.5.2009, 22.9.2009, 23.11.2009 and 4.01.2010 for evidence as some of the accused persons were absent by petition and prayed for adjournment on the aforesaid dates, though all the accused persons appeared before the said Court in the mean time. 3. THE opposite party No.1 State of West Bengal has appeared in this matter, but has not filed any affidavit-in-opposition while other opposite parties have neither appeared in this matter nor have filed any affidavit-in-opposition. 4. 3. THE opposite party No.1 State of West Bengal has appeared in this matter, but has not filed any affidavit-in-opposition while other opposite parties have neither appeared in this matter nor have filed any affidavit-in-opposition. 4. IT is to be considered in this case as to whether the learned 8th Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Calcutta was legal, correct and justified or not in conducting the trial of the said G.R. case No. 1666/2004 in the way as alleged by the present petitioner. Ms. Arpita Chatterjee, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that G.R. case No. 1666/2004 has been initiated at the instance of the petitioner as defacto-complainant, but long delay is being caused in the trial of the case, and taking advantage of that the private opposite parties No. 2 to 6 have trespassed into his rooms and are taking away his articles and he is suffering much as the trial of the said G.R. case is not being expedited, for which he has prayed for expeditious trial of the G.R. case as per the provision of Section 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 5. SK. Kasem Ali Ahmed, learned Counsel for the opposite party No.1 State of West Bengal has submitted that every litigant is entitled to expeditious trial of his litigation, and for expeditious trial of cases pending before the Courts of Judicial Magistrates subordinate to every High Court, every High Court has been entrusted with the duty to exercise continuous superintendence over the Courts of Judicial Magistrates so that the Courts of Judicial Magistrates subordinate to it try and dispose of cases before them expeditiously and properly, and the prayer of the present applicant may be considered keeping that end in view as enunciated by law. 6. NONE has appeared nor has made any submission on behalf of the opposite parties No. 2 to 6 in this matter. 6. NONE has appeared nor has made any submission on behalf of the opposite parties No. 2 to 6 in this matter. It is apparent that since 13.02.2007 the hearing of the case has been adjourned more than 13 times even after the date fixed for evidence after framing of charge or recording the plea of the accused persons, apart from absence of the accused persons on several dates for consideration of charge before that, and consequently it appears that more than five years have elapsed since the submission of charge sheet against the accused persons and more than four years have elapsed since the consideration of charge or recording of plea of the accused persons on 20.12.2006, and fixing of the case for evidence of the C.S.Ws., and it is also the case of the petitioner that he is suffering as because the trial of the case is being delayed for which he has prayed for expeditious trial of the said case. 7. IT is an established principle of law that speedy and expeditious justice should be rendered to the litigant public so that litigant public can repose trust upon the judicial system and with that end in view the provisions of Section 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, have been made. So the said provisions should be looked into and considered. By the said provisions every High Court has been entrusted with the duty to exercise continuous superintendence over the Courts of Judicial Magistrates, so that expeditious and proper disposal of cases by Magistrates are ensured under the superintendence of every High Court. 8. PROVISION of Section 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads thus:- S. 483. Every High Court shall so exercise its superintendence over the Courts of Judicial Magistrates subordinate to it as to ensure that there is an expeditious and proper disposal of cases by such Magistrates ? In the instant case it appears that though several dates have elapsed for evidence of witnesses and long more than 4 years have elapsed since the beginning of evidence of witnesses, yet the case is still pending now for evidence of the witnesses. In the instant case it appears that though several dates have elapsed for evidence of witnesses and long more than 4 years have elapsed since the beginning of evidence of witnesses, yet the case is still pending now for evidence of the witnesses. In such case prosecution should be vigilant enough and the court concerned will also ensure that evidence of the witnesses is taken without any further, delay and the trial of the case is concluded and is not delayed any further, so that the party who initiated the proceeding does not feel that he is being deprived of justice and it is also duty of the court concerned to conclude trial of a criminal case expeditiously. As per the aforesaid provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it is the duty of this Court also to exercise continuous superintendence over the Courts of Judicial Magistrates subordinate to it so as to ensure that there is expeditious and proper disposal of the cases by such Magistrates and for that reason it has also been provided thereby that every High Court shall so exercise its superintendence over the Courts of Judicial Magistrates subordinate to it so as to ensure that there is an expeditious and proper disposal of cases by such Magistrates. 9. FROM that point of view it appears that the learned Magistrate concerned was not legal, correct and justified in causing unnecessary delay in conducting the trial of the said G.R. case No. 1666/2004 and by not ensuring expeditious and proper disposal of the said case. 10. HAVING regard to the submissions of the learned Counsels for the parties, materials on record and other circumstances it appears that the interest of justice is being hampered by frequent adjournments, which are being given in the said G.R. case even after fixing date of evidence and examination of a witness in part, and so learned Magistrate concerned should not give any unnecessary adjournment to the parties at the time of taking evidence in the case as the present petitioner might suffer due to the frequent adjournments and consequent delay in trial of the said G.R. case, and should try to dispose of the case according to law expeditiously. As such the learned Magistrate concerned was not justified in causing delay in the trial of the said case. As such the learned Magistrate concerned was not justified in causing delay in the trial of the said case. So in view of the provision of Section 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which has entrusted a duty upon this court as High Court to exercise continuous superintendence over the Courts of Judicial Magistrates and to exercise its superintendence over the Courts of Judicial Magistrates subordinate to it so as to ensure that there is expeditious and proper disposal of cases by such Magistrates, there is no other alternative but to interfere with the aforesaid process of the learned Magistrate concerned in conducting the trial of the said case by giving frequent adjournments and such interference should be made for the ends of justice. Accordingly the revisional application bearing CRR No. 1068 of 2010 is allowed with the direction to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Calcutta, to dispose of the said G.R. case No. 1666 of 2004 according to law as early as possible, preferably within four months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. 11. THE revisional application is thus disposed of. 12. LET a copy of this judgement be sent to the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Calcutta, at once for information and compliance. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgement, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertaking.