Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Smt. Arpita Guin vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 7 April, 2021
Form J(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present :
The Hon'ble Justice Bibek Chaudhuri
CRR 1069 of 2020
With
CRAN 1 of 2020 (Old CRAN 3150 of 2020)
With
CRAN 2 of 2020
Smt. Arpita Guin
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
CRR 1070 of 2020
With
CRAN 1 of 2020 (Old CRAN 3151 of 2020)
Smt. Arpita Guin
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
CRR 1071 of 2020
With
CRAN 1 of 2020 (Old CRAN 3152 of 2020)
With
CRAN 2 of 2020
Smt. Arpita Guin & Anr.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
2
For the Petitioner : Md. Sabir Ahmed
Mr. Ali Ahsan Alamgir
Mr. M. Ali Naskar
Mr. Apan Saha
Mr. Shraman Sarkar
For Private Respondent : Mr. Indranil Roy
Mr. Sunit Kumar Roy
For the State : Mr. Swapan Banerjee
Ms. Purnima Ghosh
Heard on : 07.04.2021
Judgment On : 07.04.2021
Bibek Chaudhuri, J.
All the above numbered revisional applications are taken up
together for hearing as the facts of the above mentioned three
revisions are almost the same and the question of law involved in the
said three applications is also identical.
Therefore, the revisional applications are disposed of by
delivering common judgment as follows:-
The petitioner is an Assistant Teacher of Barhra High School.
She is at present under suspension. She has lodged a complaint
before the police against some teachers of the said school who are the
private opposite parties herein. On 15 th January, 2016 on the basis of
which Kankartala P.S. Case No.06 of 2016 dated 29.01.2016 under
Sections 341/342/354/323/506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code was
initiated. Investigation of the said case pended in filing charge sheet.
The case is pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate
Dubrajpur, Birbhum.
The fact of CRR 1071 of 2020 is that one Kanchan Adhikary, a
teacher of the above named school filed complaint against the
petitioner in which one Rajendra Prasad Dey, advocate represented
the said Kanchan Adhikary. Subsequently, the said Rajendra Prasad
Dey became Additional Public Prosecutor attached to the Court of the
learned Judicial Magistrate at Dubrajpur. After being the Additional
Public Prosecutor he recused from the trial of G.R. Case No.27 of 2016
initiated at the instance of Kanchan Adhikary.
Be it mentioned here that the said Kanchan Adhikary is an
accused in G.R. Case No.30 of 2016 initiated on the basis of a written
complaint submitted by the petitioner.
It is alleged by the petitioner that as the said Rajendra Prasad
Dey was an advocate for Kanchan Adhikary and accused in G.R. Case
No.30 of 2016, he is not taking proper interest in proceeding with
G.R. Case No.30 of 2016 before the learned Judicial Magistrate at
Dubrajpur. The petitioner filed an application before the trial Court
praying for changing the learned A.P.P. The learned Judicial
Magistrate requested the District Magistrate, Birbhum to change Sri
Rajendra Prasad Dey from the case but till date the District Magistrate
has not taken any step. Under the aforesaid fact situation the
application for transfer of G.R. Case No.30 of 2016 and G.R. Case
No.26 of 2016 is made by the petitioner.
On the previous date of hearing the learned P.P.-in-Charge was
requested to obtain a report from the learned A.P.P., Sri Rajendra
Prasad Dey. He submitted a report stating, inter alia, that he
represents the State in G.R. Case No.30 of 2016 initiated on the basis
of a written complaint made by the petitioner. He also stated in
writing that previously he represented one of the accused namely
Kanchan Adhikary who was the de facto complainant in G.R. Case
No.27 of 2016. The said case was filed against the petitioner and
after being appointed as A.P.P. he recused from the said case.
It is submitted by the learned advocate for the private opposite
parties that when Sri Dey, learned A.P.P. has recused from G.R. Case
No.27 of 2016 there is no impediment on his part to proceed with
G.R. Case No.30 of 2016 on behalf of the State. It is also submitted
by him that if the cases are transferred to any other Court outside
Dubrajpur, the school will be automatically closed as the petitioner
has made all the teachers of the school accused in her complaint. It is
submitted by the learned advocate for the opposite parties that in
both the cases the District Magistrate, Birbhum may be instructed to
change the Public Prosecutor so that there might not be any grievance
of both the parties.
Fair and impartial justice delivery system is the constitutional
mandate and the litigants expect fair trial in the Court of law. The
proverb goes without saying that justice must not only be done but it
appears to have been done, meaning thereby before the litigants and
common people there must be an impression that impartial and fair
justice is being imparted by a Court of law.
Bearing this time tested principle of natural justice and
constitutional mandate let me now consider the factual situation of
the matters in hand. It is not disputed that Sri Rajendra Prasad Dey
is still continuing as A.P.P. in G.R. Case No.30 of 2016. The petitioner
being the de facto complainant of the said case is not in a position to
be confident with the learned A.P.P. because he appeared on behalf of
one of the accused as a defence counsel before he was appointed as
A.P.P. in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dubrajpur. It is
not disputed that the said Kanchan Adhikary is an accused in G.R.
Case No.30 of 2016.
Undisputedly, Dubrajpur is a very small place having a 'Chawki'
Court there. The petitioner apprehends that her case may not be
conducted properly at Dubrajpur. Therefore, in my considered view if
G.R. Case No.26 of 2016, G.R. Case No.27 of 2016 and G.R. Case
No.30 of 2016 are transferred to the Court of the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Suri for trial, nobody's interest will be hampered.
In such case, the accused persons may be permitted to represent
through their learned advocate under Section 317 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure except on the dates of identification of the accused
persons and their examination under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
With the above order, all the three revisional applications along
with all connected applications are disposed of by a common
judgment.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be
made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite
formalities.
( Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)
