Calcutta High CourtCRR/718/2021disposed

Balaram Saha v. State Of West Bengal And ORS.

2021-03-11Hon'Ble Justice Jay Sengupta3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICATION Before:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAY SENGUPTA C.R.R. 718 OF 2021 BALARAM SAHA @ BALAI VS.

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL For the Petitioner:

Mr. Sudip Ghosh Chowdhury Mr. Argha Das Mr. Abhishek Bose For the State :

Mr. Imran Ali Mr. Md. Kutubuddin Heard on:

11.03.2021 Judgment delivered on:

11.03.2021 JAY SENGUPTA, J:

This is an application seeking an expeditious disposal of a proceeding in which a charge-sheet was submitted under Section 20(b)(ii) (c) of the NDPS Act, 1985.

Mr. Imran Ali and Md. Kutubuddin learned advocates who are present in Court today and who ordinarily appear on behalf of the State are requested to represent the State in this case. A copy of the revision petition is served upon them in course of the day. Their engagement may be regularised by the competent authority of the State in due course.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. The petitioner is the accused in this case. He is in custody since his date of arrest i.e., 29.10.2019. In spite of the fact that the FIR was lodged in February, 2019, till date the proceedings could not be concluded. Although the charges have been framed, no witness has been examined till date. There are ten prosecution witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the proceedings ought to be expedited in the interest of justice. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the State and have perused the revision petition.

It appears that some delay was occasioned in concluding the proceedings, especially considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 29.10.2019.

In view of the above and in the interest of justice, the learned trial court is requested to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties, preferably within a period of one year from the next date of hearing. With these observations, the revisional application is disposed of. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied to the parties expeditiously, if applied for.

(Jay Sengupta, J.)