DIPAK SARKAR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking to quash the impugned judgment and order dated 21st April, 2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bishnupur, Bankura in Criminal Appeal No. 02 of 2013 affirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 4th September, 2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Bishnupur, Bankura in G.R. Case No. 272 of 2005.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Shiladitya Sanyal, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Amartya Ghose, learned Advocate appearing for the State. I have perused the materials available on records including the impugned judgment and order with special attention. Further I have carefully gone through the case diary materials.

(3.) The allegation against the petitioner/accused in terms of the First Information Report is that he has caused change in the area, character and mode of use of the land in question unauthorisedly without any prior permission of the Collector and in violation of the provisions of Section 4C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. On the basis of such First Information Report, Kotulpur Police Station Case No. 76 of 2005 dated 6th September, 2005 under Section 4(D) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 was registered and after investigation chargesheet was submitted against the present petitioner/accused. After holding trial, the learned Magistrate came to the finding that the accused/petitioner had constructed the said petrol pump on the disputed land during the pendency of the conversion proceeding initiated as per his application. Interestingly, the original records of that conversion proceeding was not produced before the learned Magistrate on the plea that it was not traceable and, still the learned Magistrate ventured to rely on the photocopy of such proceeding on the ground that when the primary evidence is lost, this secondary evidence, being the photocopy of the said proceeding, can be accepted as secondary evidence under Section 63(2) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as the same was prepared by mechanical process which in themselves ensure the accuracy of the copy.