INDRAJIT TAPADAR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred this revisional application challenging the judgment and order dated September 24, 2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Fast Track Court, Bichar Bhawan, Calcutta in Criminal Appeal No.20/2012, by which learned Additional Sessions Judge had set aside the judgment and order dated April 30, 2011 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 6th Court, Calcutta in G.R. No.965/2002 and remanded the case back to the trial court for fresh judgment.

(2.) The backdrop of the present revisional application is as follows: -

(3.) Mr. S. Bardhan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner being the accused person has already suffered for about 14 years and that no fruitful purpose will be served by remitting the case back to the trial court after inordinate delay. He specifically submits that the appellate court cannot pass order of remand to fill up the lacunae in the evidence of the prosecution when the case already ended in acquittal. He also contends that the seizure witnesses did not turn up before the trial court and the court gave opportunity to the prosecution on four consecutive dates for examination of the prosecution witnesses in general and seizure witnesses in particular and as such the appellate court cannot pass the order of remand for examination of those seizure witnesses. By referring to the decisions of Supreme Court in "Ganesha v. Sharanappa" reported in (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 8 and in "Bablu Kumar v. State of Bihar" reported in 2015 SAR (Cri) 968, Mr. Bardhan has advanced his argument on the role of the revisional court in setting aside an order of acquittal passed by the trial court.