Sudip Banerjee @ Bhoja v. State Of West Bengal

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE The Hon'ble JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI CRR 2184 of 2022 Sudip Banerjee @ Bhoja -VsThe State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Dipayan Kundu, Mr. Souraja De.

For the State: Mr. Anwar Hossain, Jr. Govt. Adv., Mr. Joydeep Roy, Jr. Govt. Adv., Mr. Pratick Bose, Md. Kutubuddin, Ms. Manisha Sharma, Ms. Sujata Das, Mr. Navanil Dey.

Heard on: July 11, 2022.

Judgment on: July 11, 2022.

BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J. : - 1.

This is an application for expeditious disposal of GR Case No.155 of 2008, arising out of Uttarpara Police Station Case No.48 of 2008 under Section 448/325/326 of IPC pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Serampore, Hooghly.

2.

On perusal of the averment made in the instant application and having heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner, this Court of the view that the instant revision can be disposed of here and now with the

assistance of the learned Advocate for the State. Therefore Md. Anwar Hossain, learned Advocate is requested to represent the State in the instant revision. Appointment of Md. Anwar Hossain learned P.P-inCharge be regularized by the learned Legal Remembrancer, Government of West Bengal.

3.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the FIR was lodged against the petitioner on 11th March, 2008 alleging, inter alia, that on the selfsame date at about 11:30 AM when he was engaged in official work with his employees in his office, some unknown miscreants entered into his office with deadly weapons and fire arms. One of the miscreants brandashed a revolver on the forehead of the defacto complainant told that one Sudip directed them to kill the defacto complainant. Another miscreants assaulted him with butt of a fire arm on his forehead. Then the defacto complainant fled away out of fear. The miscreants opened fire aiming at him, but he was somehow saved. They also threw bomb causing severe injury to one Sk. Yeasat.

4.

Police took up the case for investigation and on 30th September, 2010 submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner. On 14th May, 2012 charge was framed against the petitioner and other accused persons under Section 448/325/326 of the IPC. Thereafter, the case was fixed for recording evidence. On 14th September, 2016 one witness, namely, Gopal Das was examined and his examination was concluded on 15th September, 2017. Since then trial of the case has not been proceeded any further.

5.

It is unfortunate to note that the charge was framed against the petitioner and the other accused persons about ten years ago. During the last ten years prosecution failed to conclude the trial of the case. This is high time when trial court should be directed to give preference to the hearing of the case and dispose of the case at the earliest. 6.

In view of above factual position and considering the long pendency of the case, the instant revisional application is disposed of directing the trial court, i.e., the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Serampore, Hooghly to examine all the charge-sheeted witnesses within six months from the date of communication of the order and dispose of the case at the earliest.

7.

With the above direction, the instant revision is disposed of. (Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)