Debabrata Saha @ Debobrata Saha vs The State Of West Bengal
2021 Latest Caselaw 39 Cal

                                C.R.A. 540 of 2019
   09
05.01.2021

With KC I.A. No. C.R.A.N. 2 of 2019 (Old No. C.R.A.N. 4479 of 2019)

Debabrata Saha @ Debobrata Saha Vs.

The State of West Bengal

Mr. Anjan Bhattacharya Ms. Anita Shaw.

... for the petitioner.

Mr. Ranabir Roychowdhury Mr. Mainak Gupta.

... for the State.

Appellant has prayed for suspension of sentence

under the provision of Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure (Cr. P. C.), which is in connection with criminal

appeal being CRA 540 of 2019 whereby and whereunder

judgment and order dated 26.06.2019 passed by the learned

Additional District and Sessions Judge, 1 st Court, Bongaon,

North 24-Parganas in Sessions Case No. 157 of 2018 (SC 207

of 2018) thereby convicting the appellant for the offence

punishable under Section 272/273 of the Indian Penal Code

(I.P.C.) and sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment for a

term of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- with

default clause for the offence under Section 272 of the I.P.C.

and further simple imprisonment for a term of six months and

to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- in default to suffer further

simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under

Section 273 of the I.P.C. has been assailed, inter alia, on the

ground stated in the memo of appeal. It is submitted that,

the petitioner/appellant is not involved in the commission of

offence alleged. It is common knowledge that the appellant

petitioner being a son of the owner of the restaurant would

engage himself in cooking rotten meat as alleged in the

complaint that he was found in the 'WI-FI Restaurant'

engaged in cooking rotten meat and it is a kind of antagonistic

allegation on the son of owner of a restaurant engaged in

cooking the rotten meat. It is also submitted that, a supplier

of meat to the restaurant were, though, arrested but the real

culprit were acquitted. The supplier of such rotten meat is

supposed to be the main culprit for the offence as alleged in

this case.

It is further submitted that the

petitioner/appellant is undergoing incarceration in jail serving

sentence for a period of one and half year and there is least

scope of the appeal being undertaken for hearing on its merit

in near future in view of the fact that lower Court record

(LCR) has not yet been received, obviously due to lock down on

account of pandemic situation which cropped up for the

"COVID-19" during 2020. It is also understood that since the

LCR is not received, paper books could not be prepared and

there is every scope of delay in hearing of the appeal.

Learned advocate for the petitioner/appellant also

submits that, there is arguable case and considering the term

punishment, the appellant can be enlarged on bail by

suspending the sentence till in the hearing of the appeal on

merit.

Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury, learned advocate for

the State also submits that, it is true that LCR has not yet

been called for, and the appeal is not made ready for its

hearing and admitted the fact of the detention of the

petitioner/appellant for a period of one and half year. It is

also submitted that, the suppliers of the rotten meat were

though arrested, and faced custody trial but ultimately

acquitted for the reason that there was no reference of their

names in the statement of the five witnesses recorded under

Section 161 Cr. P. C. If this be so, there is glaring lacuna in

the investigation by the Investigating Officer for the reasons

best known to the Investigating Officer, who has not

recorded the statements.

Be that as it may, considering the submission of

the learned advocate for the petitioner, it is an unusual

circumstance that the son of the owner of the restaurant

would engage himself in the kitchen for cooking rotten meat to

be supplied to the customers. There is no allegation as to the

fact that rotten meats were supplied to the customers who

had visited the restaurant at the moment.

Since, the appeal is not ready for hearing on its

merit, the appellant be enlarged on bail on furnishing bond of

Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of like amount one of whom

must be local to the satisfaction of the learned Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bongaon, North 24-Parganas and on

condition that he will deposit Rs.50,000/- with the learned

Trial Court and further on condition that he would attend

every month before the Trial Court till the disposal of the

appeal. Accordingly, the sentence imposed against the

petitioner/appellant remain suspended until further order or

till the conclusion of the appeal.

Thus, the application being CRAN 2 of 2019 (Old

CRAN No. 4479 of 2019 stands disposed of.

(Shivakant Prasad, J.)