Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 460 (CAL)

Pradip Kumar Sarkar v. Sankar Karar

2019-04-08

SUBHASIS DASGUPTA

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. The impugned order dated 05.07.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast rack, 1st Court, Howrah in Criminal Revision No. 98 of 2017 dismissing the revisional application thereby affirming the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Court, Howrah in GR. No. 1459 of 1993 rejecting the petition of the revisionist dated 13.6.12 praying for conducting an enquiry over the alleged tampering of date contained in the order sheet is the subject matter of challenge in this revisional application. 2. Learned advocate for the revisionist submitted that the Revisional Court, in connection of Criminal Revision No. 98 of 2017, failed to appreciate the contention, raised in the petition dated 13.06.12 in its real perspective, and thus proceeded to affirm the order of the learned Magistrate without going deep into the matter, and without ordering an enquiry, as contemplated under Section 340 Cr. P.C.. Thus according to revisionist, if an enquiry was allowed to be held for ascertaining the person/persons for alleged tampering of dates fixed for hearing in the Court s record, it would have been easier for the Court to take appropriate penal measure against the persons committing such wrongs. 3. Learned advocate for the private parties 1 to 3 submitted that the instant prayer, praying for to hold an enquiry in order to reveal the truth beyond the tampering of the court s record was nothing, but simple the drag the case which cannot be encouraged in the manner as exercised in the instant case. 4. Mr. Panda, learned advocate representing the State/opposite party supporting the stand taken by the opposite parties, submitted that several years had already been elapsed after the case was born, and there left nothing to interfere with the impugned order of Revisional Court. 5. On the basis of a complaint, police submitted chargesheet under Sections 323/506 IPC against the private parties made as accused therein. The alleged incident was held sometime in 1993, in the mean time more than 25 years have since been lapsed. Up till then, the Trial Court had already recorded three (3) witnesses, out of 10 witnesses, as cited in the chargesheet. The contention raised in this case is that there was tampering in respect of the date fixed by the Court below causing serious prejudice to revisionist/ de facto complainant. Up till then, the Trial Court had already recorded three (3) witnesses, out of 10 witnesses, as cited in the chargesheet. The contention raised in this case is that there was tampering in respect of the date fixed by the Court below causing serious prejudice to revisionist/ de facto complainant. According to revisionist in the open court, the Trial Court pronounced date giving them sufficient opportunity to comprehend that the next date fixed would be on 17.07.12. Surprisingly, the matter was taken up on 17.04.12 by the Trial Court, doing necessary tampering in the cause list as well as in the order sheet of the Trial Court, which according to revisionist, would make out an offence with the outcome of an enquiry, if allowed to be conducted to reveal the persons responsible for causing the alleged tampering. 6. It is felt necessary to refer the action already undertaken by revisionist in support of his prayer for conducting an enquiry over the alleged tampering of court s records. The revisionist moved an application on 13.6.12 alleging such tampering in court s record thereby revealing preponement of date from 17.7.12 to 17.4.12 without the required knowledge of the revisionist, which was rejected by the court below on 17.02.17, holding the same to have been made not according to the procedure after serving copy of the same upon the State as well as upon the private opposite parties. The rejection order was challenged by filing a revisional application in connection with criminal revision No.21 of 2017, when Revisional Court directed the Trial Court to rehear the petition dated 13.06.12, and disposed of the same on merits. Subsequently, the Trial Court in compliance of the direction of the Revisional Court proceeded to dispose of the self-same prayer of the revisionist on 15th September, 2017 rejecting the same with an observation therein that there was no such apparent irregularity, and further that the learned Magistrate was not bestowed with any power to review its own order, recorded by the previous Magistrate being his predecessor in court/office. The order of rejection again was then carried in revision in connection with Criminal Revision No. 98 of 2017. The Revisional Court considered several aspects of this case with regard to the alleged tampering of the court s record, and the consequence likely to occur therefrom. The order of rejection again was then carried in revision in connection with Criminal Revision No. 98 of 2017. The Revisional Court considered several aspects of this case with regard to the alleged tampering of the court s record, and the consequence likely to occur therefrom. The Revisional Court further took note of the fact that the order refusing to hold an enquiry, in terms of the prayer of the revisionist over the alleged tampering, is appealable one under Section 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellate jurisdiction, however, could not be invoked. Specific reason was assigned by the Revisional Court as to why the instant revisional application could not be converted into an appeal in exercise of the power under Section 401(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure upon considering the long harassment and prejudice caused to private parties/accused persons involved in this case for the last 25 years. 7. The important aspect to be taken into account is whether there was any prejudice caused to revisionist by reason of preponing date from 17.07.12 to 17.04.12, alleged to have been made without service of any previous notice upon the revisionist or not. It appears from the observation of the Revisional Court that the revisionist was present on the dates fixed, subsequent to 17.04.12 and there was participation for the revisionist in the Court proceeding. In the absence of any prejudice being shown to have caused to revisionist by reason of preponement of date, it will hardly serve any material and practical purpose by passing an order to hold an enquiry in order to reveal the alleged tampering of court s record. The Revisional Court accordingly, rightly held that it would be nothing but a watchful witchhunt. When there has been already direction recorded by the Revisional Court directing Trial Court to conclude the trial with a shortest best possible time observing the relevant laws in the process, no further direction appears to necessary at the moment. 8. The impugned order dated 05.07.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast rack, 1st Court, Howrah in Criminal Revision No. 98 of 2017 does not call for any interference. 9. The revisional application fails being without any merits.10. 8. The impugned order dated 05.07.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast rack, 1st Court, Howrah in Criminal Revision No. 98 of 2017 does not call for any interference. 9. The revisional application fails being without any merits.10. Learned Trial Judge is directed to be more vigilant in the matter of fixing dates of Court proceeding and communication made therefor in the cause list of the court, maintained during official course of business of a Court, and if any discrepancy is detected for any reason whatsoever, the same must be immediately addressed to without any delay serving previous notice to either of the parties involved in the case. 11. With this observation and direction, the revisional application stands disposed of. 12. Urgent photostat certified copy of this, if applied for, be given to the appearing parties as expeditiously as possible upon compliance with all necessary formalities.