Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Lakhan Mullick & Others vs The State Of West Bengal on 8 June, 2021
08.06.2021
Item no.11.
Court No.34.
AB
(Via Video Conference)
C.R.R. 1032 of 1986
With
I A CRAN 1 of 2019
(Old CRAN 379 of 2019)
I A CRAN 2 of 2019
(Old CRAN 1859 of 2019)
Lakhan Mullick & Others
Vs
The State of West Bengal
Mr. Dipanjan Dutt ...for the Petitioners.
Mr. Sandip Chakraborty...for the State.
The present revisional application has been preferred
against the order of conviction and sentence dated 30.04.1986
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Darjeeling
in Criminal Appeal No.18 of 1984 wherein the learned
Appellate Court was pleased to affirm the order of conviction
and sentence dated 16.07.1986 passed by the learned Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Siliguri in connection with G.R.
Case No.922 of 1975. The learned Trial Court was pleased to
hold the accused petitioners guilty for offences under Sections
392/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them
to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine
of Rs.1,000/-each, in default to suffer further rigorous
imprisonment for three months.
The revisional application was admitted before this
Court by an order dated 28.07.1986 specifically observing
"this Rule will be limited to the question of sentence only.
Petitioners will not be at liberty to argue on the merits of the
case at the hearing of this Rule."
Mr. Dutt, learned Advocate appearing for the
petitioners, presents his case and submits that the petitioners
have been implicated in this case on false notions and the
learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court erroneously
arrived at a conclusion of guilt so far the present petitioners
are concerned.
On the other hand, Mr. Sandip Chakraborty, learned
Advocate appearing for the State, supports the judgment
delivered by the learned Magistrate, which was affirmed by the
Appellate Court being the Sessions Court.
I have taken into account the issue on which the
revisional application was admitted. As the revisional
application is restricted on the issue of sentence and the
records reflect that the incident is of 1975, i.e. more than 45
years ago, I am of the view that it would be harsh to sieve out
the legality/illegality on the quantum of sentence so imposed
by the learned Trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate
Court.
Under the aforesaid circumstances, I direct that the
sentence, which has already been undergone by the present
petitioners, be treated as a substantive sentence in respect of
the order of guilt and conviction so imposed in connection
with G. R. Case No.922 of 1975 corresponding to Criminal
Appeal No.18 of 1984. The Rule so issued by way of order
dated 28.07.1986 is, accordingly, discharged.
Accordingly, the revisional application being C.R.R.
No.1032 of 1986 is partly allowed and all connected
applications are disposed of.
Department is directed to send back the LCR to the
Jurisdictional Courts.
Let this order be communicated to the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Darjeeling for necessary action.
All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly
downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)
