Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sk. Selim vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 3 March, 2021
Form No. J(2)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta
C.R.R. 1403 of 2020
Sk. Selim
-vs-
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Saryati Datta,
Mr. Basudeb Patra,
Mr. Iswar Chandra Maiti
For the opposite party no.2.: Mr. Surajit Basu
Heard on: 03.03.2021
Judgment on: 03.03.2021
Jay Sengupta, J.:
This is an application challenging a judgment and order
dated 16.12.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Fast Track 4th Court, Barasat, North 24 Parganas in
Criminal Revision no. 65 of 2018, thereby dismissing the
revisional application on the ground that the matter was
barred by Section 397(2) of the Code.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submits as follows. It is a fact that the petitioner/husband
had prayed for adjournments on several occasions and was
even asked to pay a fine for this in the proceeding initiated
by the opposite party/wife under Section 125 of the Code.
However, on one occasion his prayer for adjournment was
refused. Evidence was closed and a date was fixed for
argument. The petitioner prayed for recalling of the said
order, but the same was refused. The petitioner challenged
that order in revision. But, the learned Sessions Court
dismissed it by holding that the impugned order was an
interlocutory one. The petitioner wants a single day's
opportunity to adduce evidence.
Learned counsel for the opposite party/wife submits as
follows. The husband had been protracting the proceeding
for sometime. In fact, he was made to pay fine for this on as
many as four occasions. In the event an opportunity is given
to the petitioner to adduce evidence, the examination may be
done on a single day and a direction may be passed upon
the learned trial court to conclude the proceeding at the
earliest.
I have heard the submissions of the learned counsels
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the opposite
party/wife and have perused the revision petition.
Learned revisional court erred in holding that the order
refusing to recall an earlier order closing evidence and fixing
a date for arguements was merely an interlocutory order for
the purpose of Section 397(2) of the Code. Learned revisional
court ought to have entertained the revision and decided it
on merits.
It appears that the petitioner had taken adjournments
on several occasions. This will not be permitted any more.
However, keeping in mind the petitioner's precious
right to be heard in a trial, a single day's opportunity may be
granted to him to adduce evidence.
In view of the above and the impugned orders passed
by the learned revisional court and the corresponding orders
passed by the learned trial court are set aside. The matter is
remanded back to the learned trial court for disposal of the
case.
The learned trial court is requested to fix a single day
for the husband/petitioner to adduce evidence. Thereafter,
the learned trial court shall proceed with the matter and
conclude the proceeding as expeditiously as possible without
granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties,
preferably within a period of six months from the next date
of hearing.
With these observations, the revisional application is
disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied
for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings.
(Jay Sengupta, J.)
31/Ct.32
rkd
