RANJIT GUHA NIYOGI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this rule arising out of an application under Article 226 of the constitution, the petitioner, an Inspector of police attached to the Calcutta Police directorate, challenges the appearance of Mr. Arun Prakas Chatterjee, standing Counsel, on behalf of the complainant, Srimati Archana Guha, in a criminal proceeding before the learned chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta started on her complaint against him and other Police personnel at the relevant time alleged to have been attached to the Special cell, Detective Department, Lal Bazar. Srimati Archana Guha who is responpondent No. 5 in this rule filed a petition on August 20, 1977 in the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta aleging that the aforesaid persons committed intense torture on her during July 18 to July 20, 1974 at the Special Cell in the Lal Bazar police Head Quarters where she was brought from her residence earlier resulting to an almost paralysis of her lower limbs. On this petition the learned magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued process against the accused persons giving rise to Case No. C/3285/77 under Section 166, 330/34, 331/34 and 509 of the Indian Penal code. In this proceeding Mr. Arun prakas Chatterjee who in his official designation as the Standing Counsel, high Court is respondent No. 3 in this rule represented the complainant and conducted the case on her behalf against accused persons Who it was alleged are Public Servants though he had been and is a Counsel appointed by the state to defend the state and public servants.

(2.) IT was stated that the act of mr. Chatterjee in so appearing was in violation of the provisions of Sections 2 and 3 of the West Bengal Appropriation (No. 2) Act, 1977 (West Bengal Act XIX of 1977 ). Further the conduct of Mr. Chatterjee was also in violation of Rule 45 of the Legal remembrancer's Manual, Second Edition, 1971, for as a Legal Adviser to the state he is not competent to hold briefs against the State and its officers in discharge of their official duties. On these grounds it was submitted that appropriate Writs should issue restraining Mr. Chatterjee from advising a private party and holding her brief in the aforesaid proceeding pending the hearing of the application.

(3.) ON this application this Court issued a Rule on August 16, 1978 on the state of West Bengal as also on Mr. Chatterjee and others to show cause why appropriate writs as prayed for should not issue but no interim order was granted. It will appear that in the mean time the accused persons have been committed to the Court of Session and mr. Chatterjee by an order of the government dated the 6/8, January 1979 has been appointed to conduct the prosecution on behalf of the complainant obviously under the provisions of section 225 of the Criminal Procedure code. In this state of affairs it would prima facie appear that instant Rule has become infructuous in view of the subsequent orders of the learned Chief metropolition Magistrate committing the accused persons to the Court of session. But in view of the elaborate arguments raised at the Bar on the questions of law involved therein and the possible effect of the decision even in respect of the Sessions trial we proceed to examine if the conetntions raised by the petitioner are sustainable in law.