SALIL DUTTA Vs. SAJAL KUMAR BHOWMICK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) The present petitioner was made accused in a case being No. C/1068 of 1993 now pending before the ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, 6th Court, Calcutta under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The said proceeding was initiated on the basis of a complaint lodged by the present opposite party No. 1. The ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta by an order dated 14.9.93 took cognizance of the offence and transferred the case to the Id. Metropolitan Magistrate, 6th Court, Calcutta. Process was issued under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner appeared in the said proceeding through his learned lawyer, namely, Sri Tushar Kr. Sarkar. The petitioner preferred an application in this court being CRR No. 176/99 praying for quashing of the proceeding and alternatively for transferring of the said case. By an order dated 28.7.99 the said application was dismissed by this court. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Honourable Supreme Court. By an order dated 21.1.2000 the Honourable Supreme Court disposed of the said SLP with following observations:

(3.) Mr. Joymalya Bagchi, the Id. Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the complainant opposite party No. 1 in the instant case is a practising advocate of Bankshall Court, Calcutta and he is also a member of the Executive Committee of the Bar Association of the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Calcutta. The Id. Advocate submits that since the opposite party No. 1/complainant is a practising advocate of the said court. The ld. Advocate Mr. Tushar kr. Sarkar who was engaged by the present petitioner as his advocate, suddenly returned the brief to the petitioner and informed the learned court that he was retiring from the instant case. It is submitted by the petitioner's ld. Advocate that the Id. Lawyer, ordinarily practising at Bankshall Court, have not only declared that they were unwilling to represent the petitioner, but are openly exhibiting such hostility that it became impossible for any Id. lawyer of the other court to go there and to defend the petitioner in the said case. Mr. Bagchi submits that inspite of best efforts, the petitioner could not arrange for any ld. lawyer of his choice to defend himself in the instant case. The opposite party No. 1 by utilising his status as a practising advocate in the Bankshall Court, Calcutta, has created an atmosphere which is most inimical to the conducting of a free and fair trial in the instant case pending before the Id. Metropolitan Magistrate, 6th Court, Calcutta or in the court in any other Metropolitan Magistrate in the Bankshall Court, Calcutta. In such circumstances Mr. Bagchi submits that in the interest of justice and to ensure a fair trial in the instant case, the instant case should be transferred from the court of the Id. Metropolitan Magistrate, 6th Court, Calcutta to any other court of appropriate jurisdiction.