SK ABDUL HALIM Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the order dated 22-04-1997 passed by the Learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Katwa, Burdwan, the petitioners have filed the present revisional application praying for quashing the proceedings of Sessions Case no. 85/82 pending before the said Court.

(2.) The de facto complainant of the case Ajijur Rahaman lodged a written complaint against the petitioners and 20 others which was registered at Mangalkote police station case no. 4 dated 06-08-1980 u/s 147/148/149/448/338/326/307/325 of the Penal Code and under sections 6 (3) of the Explosives Act. The case was taken up for trial in due course by the Learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Katwa, being numbered as Sessions case no. 85 of 1982 and the trial court convicted the petitioners and acquitted the other accused persons vide judgment and order dated 21-03-1983. The petitioners preferred an appeal against the said judgment and order of conviction before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, First Court, Burdwan. By judgment and order dated 19- 06-1986, the Learned Appellate Court set aside the judgment of the trial court and sent the case back to the trial court on remand for fresh trial along with G.R. Case No. 624 of 1980. The Appellate Court observed that Sessions Case No. 85 of 1982 ought to have been tried with G.R. Case No. 624 of 1980 as both the cases were instituted in connection with the same incident and the complainant of one case was an accused in the other and vice-versa. It was further observed by the Appellate Court that the parties would not be entitled to adduce any further evidence before the trial court.

(3.) In course of fresh trial of the case before the trial court, the de facto complainant and the petitioners filed a joint application before the trial court wherein they stated that the dispute between the parties was amicably settled and the de facto complainant had no objection if the petitioners were acquitted from the charges levelled against them. Pursuant to the said application, the petitioners prayed for recalling the prosecution witnesses for adducing evidence in support of the petition for compromise and also issuing summons upon the 20 others accused persons who were acquitted previously. By the impugned order dated 22- 04-1997, the learned trial court rejected the said application. It is against such rejection that the present revisional application has been filed.