The Calcutta High Court directed the state to change its Public Prosecutor in a POCSO case and observed that the court is sufficiently impressed by the apprehension of the petitioner to the extent that the prosecution case may suffer in the hands of the present Public Prosecutor.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner, a victim in a POCSO case filed the present petition seeking a change of the Public Prosecutor who is handling the criminal case initiated on the basis of her complaint.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has serious reasons to apprehend that the case will not have justice in the hands of the current Public Prosecutor and further submitted that the present respondent No. 3 is a local councillor having influence. It is alleged that an application had been taken out for segregation of the case against respondent no.3/councillor, by treating the same to be a regular trial and not a trial under the rigours of the POCSO Act.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted, by handing over a typed copy of the purported deposition of the victim/petitioner, that from the said deposition, it will be evident that the case is being conducted in a proper manner by the Public Prosecutor.
Observations of the court:
The court noted that allegations of a serious nature have been made against respondent No. 3, who happens to be a councillor and the said allegations squarely come within the purview of the POCSO Act. It was stated that although, merely because the respondent no. 3 is a councillor, he need not be castigated on such ground alone, in the present case, in view of the nature of the allegations made against him, there is absolutely no reasonable basis whatsoever for the authorities to have filed an application for segregation of the allegations against him in a separate trial, out of the purview of the POCSO Act. Further, the court noted that the specific nature of the allegations made by the petitioner was not reflected in the line of questioning.
The court stated that it would be premature for the writ court to enter into the merits of the case, which may go either way upon a valid trial, however, the court is sufficiently impressed by the apprehension of the petitioner to the extent that the prosecution case may suffer in the hands of the present Public Prosecutor.
The decision of the Court:
The court directed the state to appoint some other person than the present Public Prosecutor, who is competent and has some experience in POCSO matters, to conduct the prosecution case in question.
Case Title: X vs. The State of West Bengal and Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
Case No.: WPA No. 4069 of 2024
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Avik Ghatak, Mr. Sayan Chattopadhyay, Mr. Ivan Sarkar
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Anirban Ray, Ld. GP, Mr. Jayanta Samanta, Mr. Supriya Majumder
Read @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
