Shahnawaz Khan vs The State Of West Bengal
2023 Latest Caselaw 2549 Cal

Form J(1)        IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                    Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
                              Appellate Side
Present :
The Hon'ble Justice Bibek Chaudhuri

                        C.R.R. 1377 of 2023
                        Shahnawaz Khan
                                Vs.
                     The State of West Bengal

For the petitioner      :   Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Sr. Adv.
                            Mr. Dattatreya Dutta, Adv
                            Mr. Aritra Bhattacharya, Adv.

Heard on                : 13.04.2023.

Judgment On             : 13.04.2023.

Bibek Chaudhuri, J.

In R. Viswanathan & Ors reported in AIR 1963 Supreme Court

1, the Hon'ble Justice M. Hidayatullah (as His Lordship then was)

held:-

"The rule of law about judicial conduct is as strict, as it is old.

No Judge can be considered to be competent to hear a case in which

he is directly or indirectly interested. A proved interest in a Judge not

only disqualifies him but renders his judgment a nullity. There is yet

another rule of judicial conduct which bears upon the hearing of case.

In that, the Judge is expected to be serene and even-handed, even

though his patience may be sorely tried and the time of the Court

appear to be wasted. This is based on the maxim which is often

repeated that justice should not only be done but should be seen to

be done. No litigant should leave the Court feeling reasonably that

his case was not heard or considered on its merit. If he does, then

justice, even though done in the case, fails in the doing of it."

While quoting this above observation, which, if I permitted to

use the word, should be treated as the basic structure or basic

framework of making of a Judge, I at the outset like to point out that

the petitioner never made any allegation against the concerned Judge

that he is directly or indirectly interested in that case. But his

serenity and calmness is in question. It is true that that the learned

Judge is anxious to dispose of a case but its logical conclusion hearing

argument of both sides. At the same time, he must be aware of the

fact that an Advocate who is predominantly practicing in High Court

may not be able to appear on the date fixed by the Court. Therefore,

a Judge must be amenable to adjustment of dates according to the

request of the learned Advocate. At the same time, this Court also

does not speak about such adjustment in each and every case. It is

where the discretion of a Judge comes into play. Whenever we are

talking about discretion, it must be judicious and not arbitrary. Fixing

dates repeatedly immediately on the next date shows that the learned

Judge trying to over power the learned defence Counsel putting him

in some sort of trouble.

An Advocate is also an Officer of the Court. In adversarial

justice delivery system, an Advocate is not an adversary but truly

speaking an amicus appearing for the parties to help the Judge to

take final decision in a lis.

I have personally asked Mr. Milon Mukherjee, learned Senior

Counsel when he would be able to argue the case. It is submitted by

him that he will personally appear before the learned Judge and the

date may be fixed on 6th May, 2023.

Therefore, the instant revision is disposed of requesting the

learned Trial Judge to adjourn the hearing of the case for this day and

fix 6th May, 2023 for argument on behalf of the defence.

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)

Mithun De/ A.R. (Ct).

Sl No.16.

D/L.