Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Layek Ali @ Laltu vs State Of West Bengal on 24 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta
C.R.R. 295 of 2021
With
CRAN 2 of 2021
Layek Ali @ Laltu
Versus
State of West Bengal
For the petitioner : Mr. Dipayan Kundu
..... Advocate
For the State : Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherji
Mr. Madhusudan Sur
Mr. Dipankar Paramanick
.... Advocates
Heard on : 24.11.2021
Judgment on : 24.11.2021
Jay Sengupta, J.:
This is an application challenging a criminal proceeding including an
order dated 12.03.2018 passed therein.
2
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is not praying for quashing of the proceeding in which a
charge-sheet was submitted under Section 21(c), 25, 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the proceeding is dismissed as not
pressed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits as follows. After
submission of charge-sheet against the petitioner and some other co-
accused on 28.02.2018, the learned Special Court was pleased to take
cognizance of the offences and issued warrant of arrest against the
petitioner and others. On the next date i.e., on 12.03.2018 without
recording any satisfaction regarding abscondence of the petitioner as
contemplated under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal procedure, the
learned Special Court issued an order of proclamation against the petitioner
and another. This cannot be sustained in law. The orders passed in 2018
are challenged in this revision. The same has been preferred under Article
227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code.
Learned Public Prosecutor, assisted by Mr. Madhusudan Sur, learned
Advocate, submits as follows. If an order passed in 2018 is challenged in a
revision, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has to be filed
along with that application. No such application for condonation of delay
has been filed in this case. Only by changing nomenclature, the contents of
the revisional application cannot be altered. Besides, a prima facie case is
made out against the present petitioner as it would be evident from a plain
reading of the charge-sheet. On 12.03.2018 the learned Special Judge
3
clearly recorded satisfaction that the accused had absconded and that is
why he proceeded to issue an order of proclamation against the petitioner.
I have heard the submissions of the learned counsels appearing on
behalf of the petitioner and the State and perused the revision petition and
the application for extension of interim order.
It appears that although cognizance of the offences was taken on
28.02.2018
and warrant of arrest was issued on the same day against the
petitioner and another, the same could not be executed against the
petitioner. As would be evident from the subsequent order dated
12.03.2018, the learned Special Judge perused the materials and the report
forwarded by the Inspector-in-Charge of Kaliachak Police Station stating
that the warrantees were not found at their place of residence. After
considering the materials on record, the learned Special Judge went to
record his satisfaction that the petitioner and another accused person had
absconded.
In view of the gravity of the allegations and the fact that the petitioner
and other accused were absconding far long, there was no option left open
to the learned Special Judge but to issue an order of proclamation. As such,
I do not find any illegality in the impugned order.
Besides, the petitioner cannot circumvent the ordinary course of law
by filing revision petition beyond time and without praying for condonation
of delay. As has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court that
nomenclature of an application is not important, what is important is the
content. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors, (1998) 5 SCC
749.
It is quite significant that although the order of proclamation was
issued in the year 2018, the petitioner remained untraced and did not take
any step regarding issuance of orders of warrant and proclamation till 2021.
In view of the above, I do not find any merit of this application.
Accordingly, the revisional application and the application for
extension of interim order are dismissed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment may be supplied to
the parties expeditiously, if applied for.
(Jay Sengupta, J)
tbsr
