Amaresh Das v. Sushil Gayen & ORS

13.12.2021 sl.9,sk ct.29 C.R.R.471 of 2010 In the matter of Amaresh Das......petitioner. Mr. Binay Kumar Panda Mr. Pravas Bhattacharyya ...for the State.

None appears on behalf of the contesting parties to the revisional application.

Mr. Binoy Kumar Panda along with Mr. Pravas Bhattacharyya, learned Advocates who usually appear on behalf of the State are requested to appear in this revisional application. Learned Public Prosecutor is requested to regularize the appointment of Mr. Binoy Kumar Panda and Mr. Pravas Bhattacharyya learned advocates in due course. The learned Advocate on behalf of the State appears and submits that order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kakdwip, District South 24-Parganas had become infractuous. It was related to return of seized paddy. From the record it appears that the impugned order was passed on 24.12.2009 regarding seized paddy and on 18th February, 2010, petitioner was directed to serve copy of the application upon the opposite parties and to file affidavit of service but till date neither the petitioner appears nor any affidavit of service has been filed. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the judgement passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in Misc. Case No. 593 of 2003.

Therefore, I find no reason to continue with this revisional application further. Accordingly, the revisional application stands disposed of..

(Bibhas Ranjan De, J. )