Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Biswanath Adhikary @ Bishu vs Union Of India on 24 February, 2021
(Through Video Conference)
24.02.2021
D/L-61 to 64
CRA 238 of 2015
Ct No.1
With
(AD & ab)
IA No.:CRAN 2 of 2018 (Old No.:CRAN 1103 of 2018)
With
CRAN 3 of 2019 (Old No.:CRAN 103 of 2019)
With
CRAN 4 of 2020 (Old No.:CRAN 1411 of 2020)
With
CRAN 5 of 2020
Biswanath Adhikary @ Bishu
Vs.
Union of India.
With
CRA 237 of 2015
Bapi Dey @ Buro
Vs.
Union of India
With
CRA 247 of 2015
Gopal Teli & Anr.
Vs.
Union of India
With
CRA 250 of 2015
Rabi Sekhar Pandey
Vs.
Union of India.
Mr. Sabyasachi Banerjee
Ms. Shrestha Bhattacharya
... for the appellant in CRA 238 of 2015.
Mr. Sandipan Ganguly
Mr. Dipanjan Dutt
... for the appellant in CRA 237 of 2015.
Mr. Manjit Singh
Mr. Atarul Hoque Molla
Mr. Gaganjyoti Singh
... for the appellant in CRA 250 of 2015.
Ms. Rajashree Venket Kundalia
... for the UOI in all four appeals.
These four appeals arise from NDPS Case No.N05 of 2009 of
the Additional District & Sessions Judge, 6th Court, Barasat,
North 24-Parganas decided on 27.03.2015.
CRA 237 of 2015 is by the fourth accused. CRA 238 of 2015
is by the third accused. CRA 247 of 2015 is by the first and the
fifth accused persons. CRA 250 of 2015 is by the second accused.
The Union of India is represented.
Mr. Sabyasachi Banerjee, learned advocate appears for the
appellant in CRA 238 of 2015. Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, learned
advocate appears for the appellant in CRA 237 of 2015. Mr.
Manjit Singh, learned advocate appears for the appellant in CRA
250 of 2015.
Learned advocates who have appeared today have made
certain skeleton submissions touching the basic facts which,
according to them, tend to indicate that the substratum of the
prosecution case covered by the complaint is that accused
persons 1,2 and 5 were in a moving truck from which contraband
(heroin) was seized while accused persons 3 and 4 were found
near that truck on a motorcycle and were also inculpated as
being involved in the possession or transportation of the
contraband. Learned advocate appearing for the appellants 3 and
4 hinted that at best what could be there in the records as against
accused persons 3 and 4 is a statement or statements referable to
Section 67 of the NDPS Act which by itself or themselves could
not sustain an order of conviction in view of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Tofan Singh vs.
State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 882.
Insofar as CRA 247 of 2015 is concerned, that appeal is
filed by accused persons 1 and 5. Since there was no
representation for the appellants in that appeal, an order was
passed by this Court on 19.01.2021 requiring the Superintendent
of Dum Dum Correctional Home to inform those appellants that
they may either ensure appearance of advocate, or if needed,
obtain the assistance of the High Court Legal Services Committee
to have a lawyer through the Legal Services Authority.
The report of the Superintendent as placed before us in the
form of a note of the Registry shows that the accused persons 1
and 5 who are the appellants in CRA 247 of 2015 have requested
for legal aid through the Calcutta High Court Legal Services
Committee.
In the aforesaid circumstances, we adjourn these matters
for further consideration at 2 PM on 03.03.2021.
The office will, apart from uploading this order,
communicate a copy of this order to the Officer-in-Charge of the
Calcutta High Court Legal Services Committee and also to the
Superintendent of the Dum Dum Correctional Home forthwith for
requisite further action at that end.
(Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, CJ.)
(Arijit Banerjee, J.)
