Hrishikesh Mukherjee v. Sudhanya Puilan (Kuila)

11.06.2025 Sl. No.10 AMR Ct.No.655 CRA 97 of 1995 In the matter of : Hrishikesh Mukherjee ...Appellant

1. None appears on behalf of the appellant.

2. Respondent nos. 4, 8, 9, 11 & 13 are not represented.

3. The instant appeal is preferred at the behest of the appellant challenging the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.5.1994 passed by the learned SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Tamluk in connection with Case No. 733-C of 1981.

4. It appears from the report submitted by the Officer-inCharge, Sutahata P.S., Purba Medinipur that during pendency of this appeal, the appellant/complainant, Hrishikesh Mukherjee has been expired on 28.07.2004.

5. As the appellant/complainant has already been expired, the instant appeal should be decided on merit.

6. I have perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court dated 31.5.1994 and I find nothing to interfere with the said judgment and order.

7. Accordingly, the instant appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed on merit.

8. The impugned judgment and order dated 31.5.1994 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tamluk passed in connection with Case No. 733-C of 1981 is hereby affirmed.

9. Let a copy of this order along with TCR be sent down to the learned Trial Court immediately.

10. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon complying with all legal formalities. (Prasenjit Biswas, J.)