ABDULLAH SALAFI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application has been preferred under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Cr. P.C.

(2.) Case of the petitioner is that on the basis of a report submitted by a police officer regarding the information received to the effect that some I.S.I. agents of Pakistan and Bangladesh entered into India with a view to wage war against the Indian Government and to topple the State Government, which are established in accordance with law. On the basis of the said report, a criminal case under Sections 121/121A/122/124A/153A/295A/420/467/471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code was started. During the course of investigation, this petitioner was apprehended on the allegations that he was also a conspirator so far as the said offence is concerned. According to the petitioner, he is a religious man and is a citizen of India and is in no way connected with the alleged conspiracy, as claimed on behalf of the de facto complainant. The allegations, as made in the FIR as well as in the charge-sheet, practically do not constitute any offence so far as the present petitioner is concerned.

(3.) As such, the petitioner filed an application under Section 227, Cr. P.C. praying for his discharge before the ld. Additional Sessions Judge, 9th Fast Track Court, Calcutta. Said petition was heard on 18-8-2006. Ld. Sessions Judge without considering the materials on record was pleased to reject the said petition. According to the petitioner, the order, as passed by the ld. Judge was thoroughly illegal, as there was no prima-facie case made out against the petitioner so far as the case is concerned. That apart, the ld. Sessions Judge also failed to consider that when cognizance was taken, at that time there was no valid sanction empowering the ld. Judge to take cognizance and as such, the cognizance, as taken, must be held to be bad in the eye of law and consequently on the basis of the said cognizance the case cannot proceed. Ld. Sessions Judge failed to appreciate all these things while rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner. As such, by filing this revisional application, the petitioner has claimed that further continuation of the criminal proceeding before the ld. Sessions Judge will be an abuse of the process of the Court and consequently it should be quashed.