2005 Supreme(Cal) 529
High Court Of Calcutta
Before Pravendu Narayan Sinha, J.
NABA KUMAR BERA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
C. R. R. 2037 Of 2005
Decided On : 08/16/2005
Amit Bhattacharjee, SANDIPAN GANGULY
The court's discretion in issuing warrants may be influenced by the absence of a fixed presiding officer in the court, allowing for leniency in certain circumstances.
Headnote:
Revisional Application - Court's Leniency in Issuing Warrant - The court considered the absence of a fixed presiding officer in the court and showed leniency in issuing a warrant against the petitioners, staying the warrant for a period of four weeks.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a revisional application assailing the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, fast Track Court, Arambagh, in a pending case. The petitioners were ill on the date of the court appearance, and the judge issued a warrant against them.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the absence of a fixed presiding officer in the court warranted leniency in issuing the warrant against the petitioners, staying the warrant for a period of four weeks.
Issues: The issue revolved around the necessity of the appearance of all accused persons in a court where there is no fixed presiding officer, and the discretion of the judge in such circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the absence of a fixed presiding officer in the court, leading to a lenient approach in issuing the warrant against the petitioners.
Final Decision: The revisional application was disposed of, and the warrant against the petitioners was stayed for a period of four weeks, with a directive for the petitioners to surrender before the learned Additional Sessions Judge during that time.
( 1 ) THIS revisional application has been filed by the petitioners assailing the order dated 14. 6. 2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, fast Track Court, Arambagh, in G. R. Case No. 66 of 1995 ( S. C. No. 39 of 2005 ).
( 2 ) LEARNED Advocate for the petitioners submitted that there is no fixed Presiding Officer in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, fast Track Court, Arambagh. One learned Additional Sessions Judge is in charge of the said Court. The date is pending in the said Court for appearance and for further orders. During such stage, appearance of all the 49 accused persons is not necessary. On 14. 6. 2005, these petitioners were ill for which they could not attend Court, but the learned Judge issued warrant against them and the warrant may be stayed for some time.
( 3 ) I am of the opinion that the matter can be disposed of without hearing the opposite party.
( 4 ) IT appears that the Sessions Case No. 39 of 2005 is pending in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Arambagh. The certified copy of the ordersheet annexed with the revisional application indicates that one learned Judge is in charge of the said Court. The order-sheet further indicates that the case is pending at the stage of appearance of the accused persons and for further orders. When the Court is lying vacant, as it appears from the order dated 14. 6. 2005, learned judge could have considered their application for adjournment or time submitted on 14. 6. 2005. If on the fixed date for framing of charge or evidence when the regular Presiding Officer is there in Court an accused does not appear, the learned Judge must be strict. But when the regular Presiding Officer is absent and the Court is vacant, the learned Judge in charge could have shown some leniency. Be that as it may, the warrant that has been issued against these two petitioners shall remain stayed for a period of four weeks from date during which the petitioners shall surrender before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, arambagh when the learned Additional Sessions Judge shall pass necessary orders.
( 5 ) IT is made clear that if they fail to appear before the learned Judge during the aforesaid time, the learned Judge will be at liberty to proceed with the execution of warrant against them in accordance with law.
( 6 ) THE revisional application is accordingly disposed of in the light of the observations made above.
( 7 ) CRIMINAL Section is directed to supply certified copy of this order to the learned Advocates for the petitioners, if applied for.