PRADIP KUMAR MORE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Pradip Kumar More, has challenged the judgment and order dated September 22, 2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 3rd Court, Bichar Bhawan, Calcutta, in Criminal Revision No.147/2010 by affirming the order dated May 18, 2010 passed by learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, in connection with G.R. No.1072 of 2010 by preferring revision being CRR 109 of 2011. The petitioner, Sushil Kumar Sureka has also challenged the judgment and order dated September 22, 2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 3rd Court, Bichar Bhawan, Calcutta, in Criminal Revision No.133/2010 by affirming the order dated May 18, 2010 passed by learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, in connection with G.R. No.1072 of 2010 by filing revision being CRR 110 of 2011. On the other hand, the State of West Bengal has challenged the order dated November 9, 2011 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court, Calcutta, in G.R. No.1072 of 2010 by preferring revision being CRR 4013 of 2011. Since all three revisional applications arise out of the same criminal proceeding, I am inclined to dispose of all the revisional applications by this common judgment.

(2.) The backdrop of the three revisional applications is as follows:-

(3.) Mr. Ayan Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner- accused persons contends that proclamation was not published by following the procedure laid down in Sectrion 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He further submits that clear 30 days time was not granted for appearance of the accused persons for appearance and the date and time was not published in the proclamation. He argues that the petitioner-accused persons pursued legal remedy before the higher court challenging the order of issuance of proclamation by learned Magistrate and as such, those accused persons are not liable to be prosecuted on the allegation of committing offence under Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. Bhattacharya has defended the order passed by learned Magistrate on November 9, 2011 by submitting that the order of proclamation and publication of the same in the newspaper is nullity and learned Magistrate cannot take cognizance of the offence under Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code due to specific bar under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to Mr. Bhattacharya, the supplementary charge sheet disclosing offence under section 174A of the Indian Penal Code cannot be clubbed with the other offences, as the offence punishable under Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code took place long after the incident for which the original criminal proceeding was initiated against the petitioner-accused persons.