131 17.09.2019 CRR 203 of 2019
an Court No. 33
(SectionAmar Kumar Pal vs. State anr.)
Mr. Sabyasachi Banerjee
Mr. Sujoy Sengupta
… for the petitioner
Mr. Swapan Banerjee
Mr. Suman De
… for the State
Mr. Swapan Banerjee, learned counsel who usually appears for State is
requested to represent the State in this matter. His appointment shall be regularized
by the Office of the Public Prosecutor. He may be served with a copy of the main
It is submitted that in three orders passed by three Coordinate Benches
of this Court in CRR 1477/2018 on 20.07.2018, CRR 970/2017 on 27.03.2018 and
CRR 3923/2009 on 04.12.2009, there was direction of expeditious disposal of the
trial in question, despite whereof the trial languishes, incomplete.
The accused revisionist is charged under Section 498A of the Indian
Penal Code. The complainant deposed in examination in chief initially on
05.12.2015 and thereafter vanished.
By an order dated 19.01.2018, the evidence of PW 1, the complainant
was closed by the Court below. Three years thereafter, on 15.03.2018, the
complainant being PW 1 makes an application for recall of the order, closing her
evidence under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Five witnesses had
been examined and cross-examined, in the mean time.
This court is of the view that interference is called for in the trial for the
a) the complainant herself abandoned trial for three long years after
b) the examination and cross-examination of 5 witnesses have been
completed in the meantime,
c) the proceedings have been dragged on merrily and casually by the
trial court as if the accused have no rights under the law.
There is every reason to accept and believe the argument at least on a
prima facie basis that there is serious prejudice caused to the accused persons by
reason of allowing the complainant No. 1 to be recalled under Section 311 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure.
The object and purpose of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
is to enable the learned trial court to either call for the first time any person that the
court may deem fit or re-examine any person, to enable the court to arrive at the
truth in the matter.
In the instant case, it is seen that the complainant victim prime witness
being PW 1 has abandoned the trial and the question of any further enquiry by the
court, therefore, does not and cannot arise.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, there shall be a stay of operation of
all further proceedings in connection with G.R. case No. 1463/2000 for a period of
four weeks after reopening of the long Puja Vacation.
List the matter as a ‘Contested Application’ two weeks hence after
reopening of the ensuing long Puja Vacation.
The petitioner shall communicate a copy of this order upon the non-
appearing private respondents.
Urgent certified photostat copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given
to the parties as expeditiously as possible on compliance of all necessary formalities.
(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)