BIDHUBHUSAN DHARA Vs. RATNA SAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revisional application is filed at the instance of Bidhubhusan Dhara, the complainant in C.R. No. 90 of 2000 initiated by him in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Arambagh, Hooghly, against the opposite parties for committing offences under sections 147/341 /342/406/ 425/504/536(2)/ 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and is directed against the judgment dated 16.12.2009 whereby the opposite parties were acquitted from the charges. The complainant has come up with this application challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the judgment passed by the learned Magistrate on 16.12.2009 mainly on the grounds:

(2.) THIS case appears to be a glaring example where Court finds itself helpless in the matter of disposing of criminal case quickly and provides the parties the fundamental right to speedy trial. Peculiarly enough, the petitioner herein is the complainant of the case initiated by him against the opposite parties. The case was initiated in the year 2000. Charge against the opposite parties was framed on 06.02.2008. Through out this long period of eight years, the complainant failed to make himself and his witnesses available before the Court for the purpose of examination and cross-exarnination before the charge. It may be noted here that it was a warrant of procedural case where Court was supposed to take evidence before framing charge in view of section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After framing of charge on 06.02.2008 the petitioner/complainant was given as many as three adjournments consecutively for making himself and the witnesses, examined before charge, available for their cross-examination after framing of charge. In view of subsection (6) of section 246 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Magistrate was supposed to cross-examine the complainant and the witnesses, who were examined before charge, first of all and, thereafter, to issue summons or ask the complainant to bring other witnesses if he wants to depose. Since the complainant failed to produce any witness including himself after framing of charge on three consecutive dates, the learned Magistrate was left with no option but to deliver the judgment on the basis of evidence recorded by it. It is pertinent to mention here that before closing of the case, the learned Magistrate not only granted adjournments with caution but imposed costs twice.

(3.) THERE is nothing illegality, impropriety and incorrectness on the part of the learned Magistrate in doing so.