Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Akshay Sharma @ Suresh & Anr vs State Of W.B on 31 March, 2022
Form No. J(2)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta
CRR 2263 of 2021
Akshay Sharma @ Suresh & anr.
Vs.
State of W.B.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ayan Bhatttacherjee
: Mr. Pawan Kr. Gupta
: Mr. Sharequl Haque
: Mr. Aditya Ratan Tiwary
: Mr. Suman Majumder
For the State : Mr. Sudip Ghosh
: Mr. Bitasok Banerjee
Heard on: 31st March, 2022
Judgment on : 31st March, 2022
The Court:
This is an application challenging an order dated 28th
September, 2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Fast Track Court 1, Bichar Bhawan, Calcutta in
Sessions Case No. 07 of 2021 under Sections 307, 395 and
397 of the Indian Penal Code, thereby rejecting the petitioners'
prayer for discharge under Section 227 of the Code.
A certified copy of the order-sheet filed on behalf of the
petitioners in Court is taken on record.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners
submits as follows. The petitioners are two of the accused in
this case. On 04.02.2021, it was found that the petitioner no.2
was not represented by a learned advocate. Accordingly, the
Court directed the DLSA to appoint a learned advocate to
represent him. On the next date i.e., on 18.02.2021, Mr. Mihir
Chakraborty, learned advocate, appeared on behalf of the
petitioner no.1 as appointed by the DLSA. As a private lawyer
also appeared on behalf of the said petitioner, the learned
counsel for the DLSA was discharged from the case.
Subsequently, the petitioner no.2 was represented by a learned
advocate. On the date of impugned order, the petitioner no.1
was represented by a learned lawyer. However, no one
represented the petitioner no. 2. Therefore, Mr. Mihir
Chakraborty, learned advocate for the DLSA was requested to
represent the petitioner no.2. On the very same day, charges
were framed under Sections 307, 395, 397 read with Section
34 of the Penal Code and Section 25 (1A) of the Arms Act. It is
thus evident that learned lawyer Mr. Mihir Chakraborty was
earlier engaged from the DLSA. But, he was immediately
discharged from the case as a private lawyer appeared for the
private opposite party. Therefore, he did not have an occasion
to deal with the materials at length. It is not possible for a
learned advocate, after getting appointed on a same day, to go
through the materials and properly represent an accused at
the time of framing of charges. On this score alone, the
impugned needs to be set aside.
Learned counsel for the State submits as follows. The
learned advocate for the DLSA did have occasion to deal with
the case once earlier i.e. on 18.02.2021. He again represented
the accused. Therefore, he had a clear idea about the case and
was in a position to represent the petitioner no.2 at the time of
consideration of charge. The case has now been transferred to
the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta.
I have heard the submissions of the learned counsels
appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the State and have
perused the revision petition.
It appears that a direction was passed on 04.02.2021 by
the learned trial Court to have the petitioner no.2 represented
by a lawyer from the DLSA. Pursuant to this order, learned
advocate was appointed from the DLSA and he appeared on
the next date i.e. 18.2.2021. However, on that date, a private
lawyer was engaged by the petitioner no.2. Therefore, he was
discharged from the said case.
It is debatable whether after being engaged by the DLSA,
the said learned lawyer had sufficient opportunity to go
through the materials on record and to remember the facts for
representing the accused again after a lapse of about a year.
It is not the proper course to engage a lawyer for an
accused on the date of consideration of charges and frame
charges against such accused on the same day.
The petitioner no.2 has rightly claimed that he was not
properly represented on the date of framing of charge.
In view of the above and in the interest of justice, the
impugned order needs to be set aside and remanded back to
the learned trial Judge for fresh consideration.
Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside.
The matter is remanded back to the learned Chief Judge,
City Sessions Court at Calcutta, for considering the question of
framing of charges against all the accused afresh after giving a
proper opportunity of hearing to all the parties.
With these observations, the revisional application is
disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copies of this order may be
delivered to the learned Advocates for the parties, if applied for,
upon compliance of all formalities.
(Jay Sengupta,J.)
ssi
