KISHANLAL DUA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application has been filed under Section 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The G.R. Case No. 972 of 1983 under Sections 409/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code was pending before the learned Magistrate, 14th Court, Calcutta and the present petitioner is the accused No. 3 of that case. Said case was fixed on 6.2.1986 for consideration of charge and in the mean time relevant papers were supplied to the accused persons. But thereafter the said case was adjourned from time to time. In the mean time the record of that case was called by the High Court in connection with Criminal Revision Nos. 204 and 205 of 1985. On 25.2.1987 the record was received back by the learned Magistrate. Since then several dates were fixed for consideration of charge. But the matter could not be taken up and was adjourned on the prayer of the learned Public Prosecutor. In this way several dates were fixed for consideration of charge, but same could not be done as the learned Public Prosecutor could not complete his argument. As the hearing regarding consideration of charge could not be taken place due to the laches on the part of the prosecution, so one of the accused filed Criminal Revision No. 1888 of 1990 before the High Court praying for quashing the proceeding pending before the learned Magistrate. By the order dated 6.5.1996 the High Court was pleased to remand back the case to the Magistrate with the direction to decide the question of framing of charge within one month from the date of the receipt of the order of the High Court. A direction was given in the said order that no adjournment should be granted to either of the parties.

(2.) Before the learned Magistrate, it was contended by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the instant case as by virtue of the notification of the Government of West Bengal, only the 12th Court Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta has been declared as Special Court to try such type of cases. Inspite of that, after receipt of the order from the Hon'ble High Court, the learned Magistrate fixed 16.7.1997 as the date for consideration of charge. On that day, after hearing the parties and after perusal of the papers, the learned Magistrate was of the opinion that there was prima facie material against the accused persons and so he proposed to frame charge against the accused persons and so he proposed to frame charge against all the accused persons. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order of the learned Magistrate, present revisional application has been preferred.

(3.) The revisional application has been entrusted by the O.P. No. 1 State of West Bengal as well as the O.P. No. 2 Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. I have heard the submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner as well as the learned Advocate for the State and the C.B.I. in this respect. Main contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that as the Criminal proceeding is pending for a very long period without any trial whatsoever, so it amounts to violation of the fundamental right of getting speedy trial as per Provisions of Article 21 of the CONSTITUTION OF INDIA and as such according to the learned Advocate for the petitioner, continuance of the said proceeding should be held to be bad in law and is liable to be set aside. It has further been argued that the learned 14th Metropolitan Magistrate has no jurisdiction to try the case since the learned 12th Metropolitan Magistrate has been authorised by the Government in this respect to try such type of cases within the jurisdiction of Calcutta. As such, it has been argued that the order passed by the learned 14th Metropolitan Magistrate is without jurisdiction and so it has vitiated the entire proceeding and liable to be quashed. The learned Advocate for the petitioner further argued that the age of the petitioner is about 80 years and as such, ends of justice requires that since he has faced the burden of this criminal litigation for a considerable period, so it is a fit case where the proceeding should be quashed because of the fact that the trial could not be started during these long years.