DIBYENDU NATH ROY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed in this Application the said can be disposed of even at this stage without hearing the opposite parties.

(2.) This Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner hereinabove seeking to challenge an order dated 10.10.200 1 passed by the learned chief Metropolitan Magistrate. calcutta in case No. C-5651 of 2000. While impugning the said order the petitioners lawyer submitted that without hearing him in whose. favour the award was passed and he being the most affected party the learned chief Metropolitan Magistrate was entirely wrong in dismissing the petition. It was further submitted that at the very outset the learned chief Metropolitan Magistrate. calcutta had gone into unnecessary details while adjudicating on the prayer of the complainant for issuance of process and that the entire exercise of the learned chief Metropolitan Magistrate was a result of non-application of mind and more so. the offence was continuing in nature and as such it was not incumbent upon the learned chief Metropolitan Magistrate to dismiss the petition under Section 473 of the code of criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the said codeTt) in such a fashion.

(3.) I find that the order impugned has to be setaside for reasons more than one. I am in agreement with Shri Sengupta. learned Advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner being the most affected party having suffered injury on account of the acts of the accused persons and an award obtained by him which was sought to be enforced through the legal machinery as contemplated under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (for short the said Act) by the respondent No. 7 the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate ought to have given an audience to the petitioner himself before rushing to the conclusion. This is ipso facto bad by itself.