M/S. Sun Plant Agro Ltd. & Anr vs Unknown
2023 Latest Caselaw 2495 Cal

12.4.2023

AB Ct. No.236

CRR 4232 of 2008

In the matter of : M/S. Sun Plant Agro Ltd. & Anr.

Mr. Bidyut Kumar Roy Ms. Sima Biswas ..... for the State

None is appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr.

Prattoy Khan, learned counsel submits that his senior Mr.

Ayan Bhattacharyya has retired from the brief.

Administrative notice was issued upon the parties but

the same could not be served due to want of proper address.

Mr. B. K. Roy, learned counsel is representing the

State.

This revisional application is pending for last 15

years. This application challenges the order dated 23rd

September, 2008 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 127 of

2006 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 8th Fast

Track Court, Bichar Bhawan, Calcutta.

Upon perusal of the record I find that opposite party

No. 2 Jakiur Rahaman Khan filed a petition of complaint

under Section 138 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before

the learned jurisdictional Magistrate and it was registered

as C/3543 of 1999.

After considering the testimony of witnesses and

documentary evidence learned Trial Court was pleased to record an order of conviction under Section 255(2) of the

Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused person challenged

the judgment of learned Trial Court before the learned Chief

Judge and Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 2006 was registered

and transferred to learned 8th Fast Track Court, Bichar

Bhawan, Calcutta. An application under Section 391 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the appellant which

was considered and rejected by learned Appellate Court on

23rd September, 2008.

I have perused the impugned order. The appellant

prayed for examination of one B. K. Sasmal and witness

Nos. 3 to 9 and other witnesses by taking recourse of law as

laid down under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. Learned Appellate Court having considered the

evidence on record rightly came to a conclusion that the

petition was nothing but a ploy to delay the inevitable.

I am absolutely in agreement with the view expressed

by the learned Appellate Court. The impugned order does

not warrant any interference. The criminal revision is

dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the

Calcutta High Court Legal Services Committee.

Let a copy of the order be sent down to the learned

Trial Court for information and necessary action.

(Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J.)