Neville Dadi Master @ Neville ... vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 2 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. 4006 of 2022
               Neville Dadi Master @ Neville Master
                               Vs.
                The State of West Bengal & Anr.

For the petitioner      : Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Sr. Adv.
                          Mr. L.Vishal Kumar, Adv.
                          Mr. Dipanjan Dutt, Adv.

Heard on                : 02.01.2023

Judgment On             : 02.01.2023.


Bibek Chaudhuri, J.

On the basis of a written complaint submitted by one Mr.

Abhranil Neogi, erstwhile Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1 st Court at

Sealdah on 9th August, 2017, Entally Police Station Case No.281 dated

9th August, 2017 under Sections 419/353/447/120B of the Indian

Penal Code read with Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was

registered against the petitioner. On completion of investigation, police

submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner under the above-

mentioned penal provisions.

Since the offence under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption

Act is exclusively triable by the learned Special Judge, the case was

committed to the learned Special Judge, 1st Special Court at Alipore.

The petitioner preferred an application praying for discharging

him. The learned Judge upon hearing the learned Advocate for the

parties and considering the materials on record held that there was no

ground for framing charge against the petitioner under Sections

120B/353 of the Indian Penal code and Section 12 of the Prevention of

Corruption Act. The learned Judge further held that there is prima facie

material against the petitioner to frame charge under Sections 447/419

of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the learned Special Judge

transmitted the case record to the Court of the learned Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate at Sealdah to proceed with the case against the

petitioner for offence punishable under Sections 447/419 of the Indian

Penal code.

The petitioner has challenged the legality, validity and propriety of

the said order dated 19th September, 2022 passed in Criminal Case No.1

of 2021 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2199 of 2017.

It is submitted by Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, learned Senior Counsel

on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is a Law Graduate and he

is enrolled under the Bar Council of Goa. However, the petitioner is not

the practising lawyer. He works as Manager, in a private company. The

learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1 st Court at Sealdah lodged a

report on 9th August, 2017 stating, inter alia, that when he was working

in his official chamber at around 1:20 p.m., the petitioner entered into

his chamber and asked if he could talk with respect to some case or not,

the learned Judge asked him as to why he entered into his chamber

without any permission. At this the petitioner stated that he wanted to

know about some order passed in some case on the previous day. The

learned Judge immediately asked him to leave his chamber and also

told him that he had nothing to know about any case, he should enquire

in the office of the concerned Court. Subsequently the Sherestedar

attached to his Court came to his chamber with the said person and

informed the learned Judge that the said person was taking

photographs through his mobile phone for some orders directly from a

case record. The Officer immediately seized the mobile phone and

handed over the same to the police officer with the complaint.

At the outset it is submitted by the learned Advocate for the

petitioner that the petitioner did not act properly while entering into the

official chamber of the Presiding Officer in order to take information

about a case. It was also improper to take photographs of Court's

record through his mobile phone. However, for such act, the petitioner

might be dealt with differently. The act done by the petitioner if

admitted does not constitute any offence under Sections 419 or 447 of

the Indian Penal Code.

It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the

petitioner that 419 is a penal provision for cheating by personation.

There is no allegation to the effect that the petitioner pretended to be

some other persons before the complainant. Moreover, to attract

Section 419 of the Indian Penal Code, there must be ingredients of

cheating defined in Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code. There is no

allegation that the accused deceived the Presiding Officer of the Court,

fraudulently or dishonestly induced him to deliver any property or to do

something which might likely to cause damage or harm to that person,

in body, mind, reputation or property.

It is further submitted by him that criminal trespassers under

Section 441 of the Indian Penal Code envisages an offence of wrongful

entry into or upon any property in the possession of another with intent

to commit offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in

possession of such property. There is absolutely no allegation in the FIR

as well as the documents supplied to the petitioner in compliance of

Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and accordingly, criminal

proceeding pending against the petitioner is liable to be quashed.

From the submissions made by the learned Advocate for the

petitioner, it is clear that the petitioner works as a Manager, 1in a

Company. He is a Law Graduate. He might be enrolled with a Bar

Council of a particular State but he does not practice. A person working

for gain in a private company represented himself before a Judge as an

Advocate. He wanted to know about some order passed in a case by the

said Judge. The learned Judge perceived that such unlawful entry by

the petitioner was likely to cause damage or harm to his reputation.

This perception prima facie attracts the offence of cheating by

personification.

On the same logic, the petitioner's entry in the official chamber of

the Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1 st Court at Serampore on 9th August,

2017 amounts to criminal trespass because it caused annoyance of the

learned Judge.

It is needless to say that at the time of consideration of charge,

the Court shall consider the broad probabilities and come to a findings

as to whether a prima facie case to proceed with the trial has been

established or not.

I have carefully perused the impugned order dated 19 th

September, 2022.

I do not find any reason to interfere.

Accordingly, the instant revision is dismissed summarily.

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)

Mithun De/ A.R. (Ct).

Sl No.18.

M/L.