Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Jharna Tiwary vs The State Of West Bengal on 17 February, 2023
Form J(1) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present :
The Hon'ble Justice Bibek Chaudhuri
CRR 189 of 2023
Jharna Tiwary
Vs.
The State of West Bengal
Mr. Soumyajit Das Mahapatra
Ms. Madhurai Sinha
...for the petitioner
Mr. Sandip Chakraborty
..for the State
Item No. 13
Heard & Judgment on: 17.02.2023
Bibek Chaudhuri, J.
The petitioner has filed the instant revision praying for a
direction upon the trial Court for expeditious disposal of a case
being S.T. Case No. 432 of 2013 arising out of Jagacha Police
Station Case No. 33 of 2013 dated 23rd January, 2013 under
Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section
Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act and 3/4 of the Explosive
Substances Act. The said case is pending before the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 3rd Court at Howrah.
I have gone through the averment made by the petitioner
in the instant revision. I have also heard the learned advocate
for the petitioner.
In my opinion, this case can be disposed of here and now
with the assistance of the learned advocate for the State of West
Bengal.
Therefore, Mr. Sandip Chakraborty, learned advocate is
requested to assist this Court on behalf of the State.
The petitioner is directed to serve a copy of the application
to Mr. Chakraborty which the learned advocate for the petitioner
has complied with.
Having heard the learned advocates for the parties it is
ascertained that in connection with Jagacha Police Station Case
No.33 of 2013 the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet
on 29th July, 2013. The case was committed to the Court of
Sessions on 6th November, 2013 and subsequently on transfer to
the trial Court charge was framed against the accused persons
on 7th May, 2015. There are 30 charge sheeted witnesses and in
between 2015 to 2023 out of 30 witnesses only 12 witnesses
have been examined.
It is unfortunate to note that if trial of a criminal case
cannot be concluded within a period of long seven years, it is an
example of denial of justice to both the de facto complainant and
the accused persons for inordinate delay. It is learnt that the
original de facto complainant has died. The present petitioner is
the relative of the de facto complainant who is pursuing the said
criminal case.
Considering the entire aspect of the matter, the instant
revision is disposed of directing the learned trial Judge to fix a
specific schedule for examination of remaining witnesses as per
provision of 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
In any case the learned Magistrate shall conclude recording
of evidence of the remaining 18 witnesses within ten months
from the date of communication of this order. After examination
of the witnesses the learned trial Judge shall come to a logical
conclusion of the case within one month thereafter upon
examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure and examination of any D.W. etc. The time
limit should be regarded as peremptory and mandatory and the
learned trial Judge must conclude the case within the above
mentioned time limit.
The petitioner is at liberty to act on the server copy of this
order.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)
