Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Disposed Of vs Transcriber: Nandy on 2 December, 2021
02.12.2021 CRA 183 of 1988
Court
Item
: 35
: PB-02
J.A. David
Matter
Status
: CRA
: DISPOSED OF
Vs.
Transcriber: NANDY
The State of West Bengal
Mr. Y.J. Dastoor, learned Additional Solicitor General
Mr. Phiroze Edulji, Advocate
Mr. Samrat Goswami, Advocate
...... for the CBI
None appears for the appellant J.A. David. It appears
from the case record that several notices were sent to the
appellant/convict directing him to appear before this Court. But
none of such notices could be served upon him. It shows that
the appellant/convict is not interested to proceed with the
instant appeal.
Mr. Samrat Goswami, learned lawyer appearing for the
Respondent/CBI along with Mr. Y.J. Dastoor, learned
Additional Solicitor General and Mr. Phiroze Edulji, learned
Advocate, submits that the Court may pass necessary order as
the Court deems it proper after going through the case records.
The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant
J.A. David being aggrieved by the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judge, Second
Special Court, Calcutta in Special Case No. 5 of 1979.
To put briefly, the prosecution case is as under: Sovanlal
Saha, a Director of Indian Record Manufacturing Company of
45, Motisil Street, Calcutta, applied for a passport in the office
of the Regional Passport Officer on 24.01.1978 at Calcutta. On
the day he met the Regional Passport Officer Mr. J.A. David,
the convict herein, with a visiting card of one Mrs. Lailee Saha,
wife of his elder brother, Mr. Mohan Lal Saha of Indian Record
Manufacturing Company. The convict was told about he
urgency of the passport. The convict assured Mr. Sovan Lal
Saha that he would expedite the issuance of the passport
provided he was given an Amplifier for using it for an electric
guitar. Ultimately the Passport was given to Mrs. Lailee Saha,
wife of the elder brother of Soval Lal Saha in the middle of
March 1978. But the convict reminded her of the gift he
wanted.
The fact was intimated to the D.S.P., CBI, Calcutta. An
Amplifier was purchased in order to give it to the convict in
order to nab him while he was to take the Amplifier as a
gratification. On March 17, 1978, while the convict was about
to receive the Amplifier, which the signatures of witnesses, the
CBI officials nabbed him.
The convict was tried for the charges under Section 161
and 165 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section
5(2) read with 5(I)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
before the learned Judge, Second Special Court, Calcutta. On
appreciation of the evidence as produced before the learned
Judge, the learned trial Judge held the convict guilty of
commission of the offence punishable under Section 161 of he
Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(2) read with Section
5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. However, the
convict was acquitted of the charges under Section 165 of the
Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to suffer simple
imprisonment for six months for commission of offence under
Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer simple
imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in
default to suffer simple imprisonment for six weeks for
commission of offence under Section 5(2) read with Section
5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The convict assails the judgment on the ground that the
judgment suffers from illegality and irregularity.
I have minutely read the judgment passed by the learned
trial Judge. I have also perused the other materials-on-record.
What I find, the learned trial Judge has passed the
judgment and the order of conviction and sentence recording
findings which are based on proper assessment and
appreciation of the evidence
As stated above, despite all endeavours made by this
Court to bring the appellant on record, the appellant could not
be brought on record.
Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the
respondent and in view of the above observations, I think that
the appeal is liable to be dismissed. .
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The judgement and
the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned
Judge, Second Special Court, Calcutta in Special Case No. 5
of 1979 is hereby confirmed.
Send back the relevant case records to the learned Court
below along with the copy of this order.
CRA 183 of 1988 is disposed of accordingly.
If the appellant/convict has not served out the sentence
with entirety, he is directed to surrender forthwith before the
learned trial Court to serve out the remaining part of the
sentence, if any. If the appellant/convict fails to surrender
before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Judge is at
liberty to pass necessary direction or order including issuance
of non-bailable Warrant of Arrest so that the appellant/ convict
serve out the remaining sentence.
(Rabindranath Samanta, J.)
