STATE Vs. DEBABRATA MOITRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the first sitting of the Fourth Criminal Sessions of 1984, on the 3rd September 1984, the learned Public Prosecutor of this Court Mr. S. Mukherjee, mentioned this case, being Sessions Case No.17 of 1984 pending before the learned Third Bench, City Sessions Court, Calcutta (State-versus-Debabrata Moitra and two others). He orally brought to my notice that this particular Sessions Case involving inter alia S.302 of the I.P.C had been committed to the City Sessions Court by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court, Calcutta and that in his submission it involved complex questions of law including that of the jurisdiction of the City Sessions Court to try this case. He further submitted that this case should be removed for trial from the City Sessions Court to the High Court in the exercise of its Original Criminal Jurisdiction under the provisions of sub-sec (1) of S.8 of the Calcutta City Sessions Court Act, 1953.

(2.) Mr. S. Mukherjee, the learned Public Prosecutor of this Court was not appearing on behalf of the prosecution in the Sessions Case sought to be removed to this Court Since he had brought this matter to my notice, of my own motion, I issued a suo motu "Show Cause" notice on the parties and the learned Third Bench, City Sessions Court, Calcutta, on the same day, as to why the said Sessions Case, committed for trial to the City Sessions Court should not be removed for trial to the High Court in exercise of its Original Criminal Jurisdiction. The said notice was made returnable on the 11th September 1984, and the entire records of the case were called for from the City Sessions Court.

(3.) On the 11th September 1984, it appeared that the entire records of the case had not yet arrived before this Court. It also transpired that S.8 of the City Sessions Act 1953 stood repealed, a fact which unfortunately had escaped the notice both of Mr. S. Mukherjee, the learned Public Prosecutor of this Court when he made his submissions on the 3rd September 1984, and mine. On a perusal of the records of the case as received by this Court on that day (i.e. on the 11th September 1984) I suo motu, issued a fresh "Show Cause" notice on all the parties concerned, including the learned Third Bench, City Sessions Court, Calcutta as to why this case will not be transferred to and/or be tried by this Court under the provisions of the law, and in particular under the provisions of Cl.29 or Cl. 24 of the Letters Patent or under the provisions of S.407 of the Cri PC 1973. I also directed that the rest of the records be sent to this Court forthwith. All the three accused persons in this Case were personally present in Court, with the learned Advocates representing them. The learned Public Prosecutor, High Court and the learned Public Prosecutor, City Sessions Court (Mr. Sisir Ghose) who is conducting this trial before the learned Third Bench, City Sessions Court, Calcutta on behalf of the State were also present when I issued the said fresh suo motu notice to show cause. As all the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of all the parties submitted that 17th September 1984 would be convenient for all of them. I accordingly made the said notice returnable on that date.