Calcutta High Court The State Of West Bengal-vs-Bejoyesh Ghosh And Anr. on 30 June, 1995
Equivalent citations:(1996) 1 CALLT 63 HC
Bench: N K Bhattacharyya
Nripendra Kumar Bhattacharyya, J.
1. Heard the submission of the Ld. P.P. appearing with Mr. Sasanka Sekhar Ghose for the State and Mr. Kamal Bhattacharjee for the O.P, Nos. 1 & 2. considered the materials on record.
2. In this application Under Section 107(1) read with Sec. 482 of the Cr. P. C. the State has prayed for transfer of the Sessions Trial No. 303(11) 6f 1992 in connection with Sessions Case No. 47(9)/90 arising out of Kharda P. S. Case No. 216 dated 4.4.39, Under Section 498A/306. of the I.P.C. pending before the court of the Sessions Judge, Barasat, 24 Parganas (North),
3. The relevant back-ground of the case is that there was an allegation of torture both physical and mental upon the wife of accused No. 1 Bijoyesh pushing the victim girl to commit suicide. Upon such complaint or F.I.R. before the police, the matter was investigated into and thereafter charge- sheet was submitted. The case was committed to the court of Sessions and ultimately charge was framed against the accused persons who are the O.Ps. 1 and 2 herain for offence Under Section 198A/306 of the I.P.C. The said charge was framed against the accused persons by the Ld. Sessions Judge on 30th November, 1991. Evidence has not yet been led. In the meantime, the accused petitioners made an application for the discharge of the case on 6.1.93. They also made another application Under Section 311 of the Cr. P.C. on 15.9.93. The Ld. Sessions judge by his order No. 16 dated 26.7.93 fixed the date of hearing of the said application on 21st January, 1 1994. Thereafter, the accused-persons made another application for disposal of their application Under Section 311 earlier. But the Ld. Sessions rejected the prayer. The fact remains that the applications of the accused persons filed on 6.8.93 and 15.9. 93 have not yet been disposed of . From the supplementary affidavit and counter affidavit to revisional application filed by the accused persons it appears that there was threat and intimidation by the respective parties. Daries have been made by both the defacto complainant and the accused persons against each other, stating, inter alia, that their safety are in question. That is also the allegation of the State. There is nothing on record to show that the State can afford protection to the defacto-complainant or to other witnesses to the prosecution. Mr. Bhattacharjee submitted for the accused persons that it is the duty of the State to give protection to the witnesses for the prosecution. The Ld. Public Prosecutor Mr. Safiulla assured this Court that though the State would not be able to give protection to the defacto-complainant or to other witnesses to the prosecution. Mr. Bhattacharjee submitted for the accused persons that it is the duty of the State to give protection to the witnesses for the prosecution. The Ld. Public Prosecutor Mr. Saflulla assured this Court that though the State would not be able to give protection to the prosecution witnesses but he made it quite clear that if the case is tried in the metropolis such protection can be afforded. In view of the allegation and counter allegation and also in view of the fact that the case is long pending and the applications filed by the accused persons have not been disposed of which have been filed as far back as in 1993, the suffering is not only for the prosecution witness but also for the accused persons. The Supreme Court in very many cases, including the case of Antuley, has held repeatedly that speedy trial is a fundamental right of the accused person. But, from the record it appears that, that right has been denied to accused persons. From the face of the record it also appears that the State failed to give protection to the prosecution witnesses in case they are to depose in the trial at Barasat, 24-Parganas (North). In consideration of the overall situation, I think, it is a fit case where the session trial should be transferred to a neutral place where the accused will get speedy trial and the prosecution witnesses will feel safe.
4. In such circumstances., I allow this application of the State and direct that the sessions trial No. 3(11)/91 pending in the court of the Sessions Judge, Barasat, 24-Parganas (North) be transferred to the court of the Ld. Sessions Judge City Civil Court at Calcutta. The Ld. Sessions Judge himself will dispose of the matter or he can assign the matter to a court of his own selection. But the trial must be completed within a period of 6 months from this date. With this observation, I allow this revisional application. Lower Court record called for be sent down to the trial court at Barasat by a special messenger at the cost of the State. Such cost be deposited by Monday. The Ld. Sessions Judge, Barasat, is also directed to transmit the record to the City Civil & Sessions Court, Calcutta, immediately on requisition.