LAWS(CAL)-1995-1-12

DEBENDRA NATH DAS Vs. BIBHUTI PAUL

Decided On January 04, 1995
DEBENDRA NATH DAS Appellant
V/S
BIBHUTI PAUL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this revision the complainant petitioner has challenged Order No. 2 dated 8-7-94 passed in Criminal Motion No. 126 of 1994 by the District and Sessions Judge, Howrah, whereby the learned Sessions Judge refused admission of the criminal motion in limine on the ground that by one revisional application two orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 6th Court, Howrah, being Order No. 52 dated 22-4-94 and Order No. 53 dated 30-4-94 passed in Case No. 2412C/89 having been challenged the said revisional application is not maintainable.

(2.) The brief background of the case is that in course of the trial some witnesses of the complainant, though summoned and appeared before the Court in answer to the summons could not be examined due to certain reasons. Prayer was made by the complainant for calling for the said witnesses as Court witnesses, and in the alternative, issuing fresh process upon the said witnesses. Adjournment was prayed by the complainant but the prayer for adjournment was refused by the orders dated 22-4-94 and 30-4-94. The learned Magistrate, after closing evidence for the complainant, fixed the case for examination of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The orders are similar in nature. The petitioner herein by one application challenged the said orders in revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Howrah and the same was registered there as Criminal Motion No. 126 of 1994. The learned Sessions Judge fixed the case for admission on 8-7-94 and on 8-7-94 dismissed the revisional application on the grounds as stated above.

(3.) Mr. Subroto Bose, learned Advocate appearing for the complainant petitioner, contended, infer alia, that there is nothing in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 preventing challenging of two orders by one revisional application. Mr. Bose, in support of his argument, referred to Rule 118 of the Criminal Rules and Orders, Vol. I, which contemplates such a position and permits one revision challenging more than one order.