Gaoutam Chakraborty v. State Of West Bengal And ANR

rkd 25.03.2021 Ct. no.32 C.R.R. 882 of 2021 In the matter of: Goutam Chakraborty ....petitioner.

Mr. S. Mukherjee, Ms. N. Das, Mr. A. D. Sharma, Mr. D. Choudhury ...for the petitioner.

Mr. I. Ali, Mr. M. Sharma ...for the State.

This is an application seeking an expeditious disposal of a proceeding in which a charge sheet was submitted under Sections 498A and 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

A copy of the application is served upon Mr. Ali and Ms. Sharma, learned advocates who are present in Court and who ordinarily appear on behalf of the State. They are requested to appear in the matter. Their engagement be regularised by the competent authority of the State.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. The petitioner is an accused in this case. Although the first information report was lodged in 2014 and even the charge sheet was submitted at the end of 2014, till date the proceeding could not be concluded. There are five prosecution witnesses as mentioned in the charge sheet. Although charges were framed in 2015, till date out of five witnesses only one witness has been examined. On several dates prosecution failed to produce the witness. The proceeding has largely remained pending for no fault of the present

petitioner.

Leaned counsel for the State submits that the impugned proceeding may be expedited in the interest of justice. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the State and have perused the revision petition.

No prejudice will be caused to anyone, if a direction is passed to expedite the proceeding.

It appears that the some delay was occasioned in concluding the impugned proceeding, especially considering the fact that the charges were framed as far back as in 2015. In view of the above and in the interest of justice, I request the learned trial court to conclude the proceeding as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties and in particular, preferably within a period of ten months from the next date of hearing. With these observations, the revisional application is disposed of.

Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings. (Jay Sengupta, J.)