Palash Maity And Others v. State Of West Bengal And ANR

11.09.2025 Sl.No. 35 Ct. 237 Amalranjan In The High Court At Calcutta Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side CRR 3590 of 2025 Palash Maity and ors.

Vs.

The State of West Bengal and anr.

Mr. Atanu Ghosh..........for the petitioners 1.

This revisional application has been filed by the petitioners assailing the order no. 30 dated 24.06.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 17th Court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas in connection with Sessions Trial No. 01(11)2021 arising out of SC 22(03)2019 in connection with Nodakhali PS Case no. 17/2017 dated 10.01.2017 under Sections 498A/302/34 IPC read with 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2.

It is submitted by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners are the accused in connection with ST 01(11)2021. They all along remained present on each and every date on the date fixed of such case.

3.

However, on 24.06.2025 they could not remain present. An adjournment petition was filed on their behalf, which was allowed by the learned trial Court subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/-.

4.

The petitioners are aggrieved by the imposition of such cost.

5.

Having heard the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and upon going through the materials on record including the impugned order, it is transpired that on 24.06.2025 ST 01(11)2021 was fixed for further cross-examination of prosecution witness no. 1. 6.

An adjournment petition was filed by the petitioners, which was apparently allowed by the learned trial Court subject to payment of Rs. 3,000/- to the witness to be paid in court on the next date and Rs. 2,000/- to be paid to the District Legal Services Authority, Alipore. 7.

The petitioners contended that they have been diligent in respect of the sessions case pending against them and they have been attending court on each and every date fixed. However, they could not attend on 24.06.2025, though a time petition was filed on their behalf. The petitioners are not habitual absconders. They have been appearing in the case on each and every date and perusing the case diligently.

8.

In such circumstances as well as considering the conduct of the petitioners from the order-sheet of the sessions case as appended to the revisional application, it would be appropriate to dispose of the instant revisional application.

9.

The impugned order so far as it relates to payment of Rs. 5,000/- is concerned, it is modified to the extent that the

petitioner shall pay Rs. 1,000/- to the witness, i.e., PW1 on the date fixed in sessions case.

10.

With such modifications in the impugned order, the instant revisional application being CRR 3590 of 2025 is, accordingly, disposed of.

11.

Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned trial court for information.

12.

All parties shall act in terms of the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this court.

( Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J. )