KUMAR KRISHNA MONDAL Vs. ANJALI MONDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revisional application being one under Section 482 Cr. P.C. arises out of an order dated 25-6-92 passed by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Diamond Harbour in Case No. C-1089 of 1986.

(2.) A complaint case was filed by O. P. No. 1 before the Ld. S.D.J.M., Diamond Harbour under Section 493/496 I.P.C. Cognizance was taken and process was issued against the petitioner. The petitioner surrendered on 5-5-87 and was enlarged an bail. On 14-12-87 the case was fixed far evidence before charge when complainant was present with three witnesses. But Presiding Officer being otherwise engaged no witness was examined. This process continued and on a number of occasions no witness could be examined even though the complainant was present with witnesses. The reason for such adjournments were mostly either due to the Presiding Officer being engaged otherwise or the Presiding Officer having been transferred. The first witness was examined on 12-11-91 and evidence concluded on 4-3-92. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 245 (3) Cr. P.C. on 4-3-92 and the Ld. Magistrate after Reating the party disallowed the prayer contained in the petition on 25-6-92 and also charge was framed against the accused. It has been contended that the Ld. Magistrate ought to have discharged the accused since no evidence could be produced in course of four (4) years from the date of appearance of the accused which was on 5-5-87.

(3.) The revisional application was heard by Shri. A. K. Dutta, J. and after conclusion of hearing a judgment was delivered on 1-10-93 whereby he referred the matter to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for Constitution of a larger Banch for deciding the point of law involved in the matter. The Ld. Judge also summed up the point of law involved as follows :- Whether the power that has been given to a Magistrate under the amended Section 245(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to permit continuation of further proceedings beyond the period of four (4) years from the date of appearance of the accused in cases instituted otherwise than on Police Report could be exercised after the expiry of the said period and more particularly where the prosecution is not responsible for prolongation of the proceeding as in the instant proceedings as noted above.