BIDYUT KUMAR CHATTERJEE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject matter of challenge in the instant criminal revision is a chargesheet relating to the offences punishable under Sections 224/120B of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The background facts of the case are as follows; On 1.10.08 the accused Dolly Howlader was brought at Alipore Sadar Court, Bengal Lock Up, from custody for her production before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 9th Court, Alipore in connection with Jadavpur Police Station Case No. 355 (6) 08, under Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code. When the accused Bidyut Chatterjee, Bench Clerk 1, attached to the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 9th Court, Alipore along with one Law Clerk, Moloy Chatterjee produced the custody warrant before the Lock Up In-charge and got her released on the strength thereof. The said Dolly Howlader was handed over to the accused Bidyut Chatterjee. Subsequently, it was discovered that there was a note endorsed on the custody warrant for not releasing her from custody as she was a Bangladeshi National. Following the aforesaid incident Alipore Police Station Case No. 241, dated 30.10.08, under Sections 120B/224 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the petitioner.

(3.) In the meantime, in connection with the aforesaid case on April 18, 2009 the petitioner moved an application under Section 167 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for his discharge from the case on the ground no charge-sheet was submitted within the statutory period, but on April 21, 2009 police submitted charge-sheet against him and another for the self-same offence. However, the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, 24-Parganas (South) rejected the petitioners prayer for discharge under Section 167 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on a finding that sufficient materials have been collected by the police as against the accused/petitioner showing his complicity in releasing one Bangladeshi National from custody by illegal means. In this criminal revision the petitioner challenged the said order, whereby the Learned Court below rejected his aforesaid application.