LAWS(CAL)-2008-12-94

CHAITANNA MAHATO Vs. STATE OF WEST BENAGAL

Decided On December 18, 2008
CHAITANNA MAHATO Appellant
V/S
State Of West Benagal Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner.

(2.) After hearing the submission of Mr. Mukherjee, the learned Advocate for the petitioner and going through the entire order dated 9.11.06 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Purulia-cum-Judge, Special Court (1.E. Act) and the procedure adopted by him in the matter. I am of the opinion that this matter should be disposed of without hearing the State.

(3.) It is evident that on the basis of a complaint/F.I.R. lodged by Station Manager, Bagmundi Group Electric Supply, Bagmundi P.S. Case No. 26 dated 20.10.06 under Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (Electric G.R. Case No. 48/06) was started against the petitioner and the F.I.R. was forwarded to the Court of the learned CJM on 23.10.06 and the learned Magistrate, transferred the same to the learned Special Judge who received the same on 30.10.06. The learned special Judge fixed 10.11.06 as the date of receipt of report in final form. In the meantime on 31.1.0.06, the Station Manager, Bagmundi Group Electric Supply raised a provisional bill of Rs. 1,823/- in the name of the petitioner which was paid by the petitioner on the very same day as it appears from annexure P-1. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared before the learned Special Judge on 9.11.06 and filed an application praying for bail and also produced the receipt showing payment of dues to the W.B.S.E.B. While considering the bail application, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (I.E. Act) adopted an unique procedure which is unknown in law. As report in final form was received by that time, the learned Judge decided to frame charge though it was not the scheduled date. The record was put up on the prayer of accused/petitioner on 9.11.06 who prayed for bail. Date of consideration of charge was not fixed and the petitioner was not given time to consult his lawyer for preparation of his defence and practically no opportunity of hearing during stage of charge was given.