SATYABRATA MOOKHERJEE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are the applications under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure arising out of TR No. 1341 of 2009, T.R. No. 1339 of 2009, T.R. No. 1337 of 2009, T.R. No. 1340 of 2009, T.R. No. 1338 of 2009, T.R. No. 1336 of 2009, T.R. No. 1342 of 2009, T.R. No. 1343 of 2009 pending before of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Krishnanagar, Nadia praying for quashing of the proceedings. All the applications are taken up together as common questions of law are involved.

(2.) The prosecution case, in short, is that the political campaign was made by displaying the name of the Petitioner in the hoarding, in violation of the model code of conduct issued by ECI vide Memo dated 07.10.2008 thereby defacing the public property. It has been alleged that there was violation of Section 121(4) of the West Bengal Municipal (Second Amendment) Act, 2006. The proceeding was initiated by making G.D. entry and thereafter prosecution report was submitted before the learned Magistrate. The first order sheet of the learned Magistrate was opened in TR No. 1341 of 2009 on 3.4.2009 and it is quoted as follows:

(3.) It is contended by Mr. Basu appearing for the Petitioner that the provision of Section 121(4) of the West Bengal Municipal (Second Amendment) Act, 2006 is the pari materia law as contained in Section 202(4) of the Kolkata Municipal Act. It is contended by Mr. Basu that the alleged offence is non-cognizable one and the prosecution report was submitted without obtaining the permission from the learned Magistrate under Section 155(2) Code of Criminal Procedure In this connection Mr. Basu has referred to the decisions reported in, 2008 (1) C Cr. LR (Cal) 763, (Bijoy Yadav and Ors. v. State of West Bengal,2010 3 Ch 145, (Sudip Bandyopadhyay v. State of West Bengal and Anr,1976 Ch 131, (Tapan Kumar Ghosal v. State of West Bengal and Anr,1997 SCC 298, (Keshav Lal Thakur v. State of Bihar,1992 SCC 470 paragraph 102, (State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal).