LAWS(CAL)-2011-2-94

HEMANTA MONDAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Decided On February 04, 2011
HEMANTA MONDAL Appellant
V/S
STA111111TE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR. Prabir Kumar Mitra, learned Advocate is appearing on behalf of the petitioners. MR. Tapan Dutta Gupta, learned Advocate, teamed Advocate is appearing for the Opposite Party No. 2 and MR. S. K. Mallick, learned Advocate is appearing for the State.

(2.) IRKED by the repeated defeat to bring the witness namely Bikash Chandra Biswas, the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track 1st Court, Haldia closed evidence of the prosecution on 18.02.10 in Sessions Trial Case No. 38/2008. The de facto complainant challenged that order in revision and obtained stay order from this Court. On the date i. e. 16.03. 2010 fixed for examination of the accused persons who are petitioners herein, the learned Court adjourned the case for further hearing to 16.04.2010 on the ground that the de facto complainant of the case informed the Court that all the proceedings of the trial have been stayed by this Court in a revisional application. On 18.05.2010, a letter of an Advocate of this Court was presented on behalf of the prosecution showing stay of further proceedings of the trial for six weeks, which, eventually expired before 18.05.2010. Therefore, the learned trial Court decided to proceed further with the trial and allowed the prayer of the prosecution under Section 311 of Cr. P. C for examination of Dr. Bikash Chandra Biswas on 04.06.2010. On 04.06.10, Dr. Biswas was examined, cross-examined and was dischargea. Some documents were also admitted into evidence and marked exhibits on behalf of the prosecution on that date, the learned Public Prosecutor was conducting the case on behalf of the prosecution prayed for closure of the prosecution evidence. Accordingly, the learned trial Court closed the prosecution case and fixed on 15.06.2010 for examination of the accused persons under Section 313, Cr. P. C. On 15.06.2010, the learned Public Prosecutor( newly appointed) had taken out one application under Section 311 of the Code praying for examination of five other witnesses for the purpose of just decision of the case. The learned trial Court. Subsequently fixed 30 06.2010 for hearing of the matter together with the written objection to be filed by the accused persons (present petitioners). On 30.06.2010, the learned Court upon hearing of the learned Counsels for both the parties as well as appreciating the evidence already recorded, found that for the purpose of the just decision of the case, examination of those five witnesses is necessary although the names of those witnesses have not been mentioned in the charge-sheet as witnesses. He allowed the prayer under Section 311, Cr. P. C. The accused persons challenged the legality, validity and propriety of that order dated 30.06.2010 in this revisional application.

(3.) HE submits that the learned trial Court become frustrated with the manner in which the prosecution carried on the trial. The learned public Prosecutor in charge of that trial on behalf of the prosecution never acted diligently and made prayer after prayer according to his whim and even during the period the stay order passed by. this Court was prevailing. HE takes to me to the order no. 04.06.10 and submits that on that date, after examination and cross-examination of Dr. Bikash Chandra Biswas as P.W. 9, the learned Public Prosecutor in Charge of the case on behalf of the prosecution prayed for closure of the prosecution case and as such, the learned trial Court closed the prosecution case on that date fixing 05.06.2010 for examination of the accused persons under Section 313, Cr. P. C.