SUSANTA KUMAR BOSE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revisional application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed praying for issuing a rule for quashing impugned proceedings in Amherst Street P.S. Case No. 123 dated 23.05.2005 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 665 of 2005 pending before the Court of learned 4th Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata wherein cognisance has been taken under section 11C of the West Bengal Fire Services Act, 1950 without compliance of proviso to section 11C read with section 35 of the West Bengal Fire Services Act, 1950.

(2.) LEARNED Lawyer for the petitioner contended that on or about 23.05.2005 a fire broke out in the morning in the ground floor near the staircase of premises No. 10, Old Post Office Street, Kolkata - 700 001 due to the negligent act and non-maintenance of electric wearing by the tenants and occupants of the said premises but before any damage caused in respect of lives and properties, the fire was brought under control by the fire brigade. Thereafter the Sub-Inspector, Amherst Street Police Station lodged an F.I.R. against some unknown accused persons and subsequently on 26.05.2005 the caretaker of the premises was arrested in connection with the said case. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under section 438 Cr.PC before the learned Chief Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Calcutta which was allowed. His contention is that neither the petitioner nor the company is in occupation or possession of any portion of the said premises as lessee. Though the petitioner had not committed any offence, the opposite party No. 2 has submitted charge-sheet/final report on 27.12.2005 alleging, inter alia, that prima facie charge under section 11C of the West Bengal Fire Services Act, 1950 had been established against the petitioner and another person and the learned Court below has taken cognisance under section 11C of the West Bengal Fire Services Act, 1950 which is bad in law for breach of mandatory provisions of section 11C of the said Act which runs on as follows:

(3.) LEARNED Lawyer for the State in his usual art of fairness has submitted that in the instant case no such notice was issued to the petitioner. Service of such notice before initiation of the proceeding prescribed in the statute is mandatory and such failure is obviously a gross irregularity which vitiates the entire proceeding ab initio.