1. Both the aforesaid Criminal Revisions are arising out of the self-same Sessions Case SC 2(7) 13, pending before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Third Court, Barasat, North 24-Parganas, where 8 accused persons on being charge-sheeted under Section 376A/376D/302/342/201/109/120B IPC, are awaiting to face the question of framing charge against them.

2. The first Criminal Revision, C.R.R. No. 2570 of 2013 has been moved for a direction for immediate commencement of the Trial and expeditious conclusion of the same, whereas the other Criminal Revision, C.R.R. No. 2583 of 2013 has been moved at the behest of the 8 Charge-sheeted accused persons for the transfer of the said Sessions Case to any other Sessions Division.

3. In my endeavour to give a decision on the core issues viz., whether the Trial Court be directed to conclude the trial speedily and the trial in question be transferred to some other session division, I may begin with the fact that in connection with the self-same sessions case a public interest litigation being W.P. 16482 (W) of 2013 was moved before this Court by a public spirited lawyer, seeking direction for further investigation by a different investigating agency being monitored by High Court. It may be noted neither the charge-sheeted accused, who are the opposite parties in the first Criminal Revision and petitioners in the second Criminal Revision nor the de facto complainant who is a opposite party in both the Criminal Revisions, were the parties in the said public interest litigation. The said public interest litigation has been disposed of, on August 1, 2013 and the prayer for further investigation by a different agency under High Court’s monitoring has been declined. Although rejection of the prayer for further investigation is not of much bearing towards the decision in the aforesaid Criminal Revisions, but certain observations made by the Division Bench presided over by the Hon’ble Chief Justice are of great relevance. Those observations are summed up below:

1) The competent Court at Barasat is trying the case in a fair manner. Thus, what was pointed out that the trial would not be made fairly, stands ruled out at this stage.

2) In case, there is any deficiency, the same can be looked into by the Court trying the case in an effective manner.

3) It would not be appropriate to issue any further direction with respect to the investigation. It would also not be appropriate to issue any direction with respect to the deficiency in the investigation, if any, sitting in writ jurisdiction of this Court as the competent Court, at Barasat is trying the case that too stated to be in a fair manner.

4) As per the of amended provisions added by amendment made under section 24(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court may permit the victim to engage an Advocate of his choice to assist the prosecution. We direct the Trial Judge is directed to permit the victims to engage an advocate of their choice to assist the prosecution as provided in the aforesaid provisions.

It is open to the victims not only to assist prosecution but also to point out the deficiency, if any.

5) The Trial Judge should take into consideration the proviso to Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to expedite the trial but at the same time, ensure fair trial in the interest of all the parties.

6) It was also submitted that the accused has unnecessarily filed a petition so as to delay the trial for transfer of the same before the Single Bench. As the matter is not before us, we refrain ourselves from making any comment on the aforesaid submissions. The application is to be decided by the Single Bench.

Thus, from the aforesaid observations of the Division Bench it boils down,

a) There is no fault or lapse in the investigation done by the State police and if there is any deficiency same to be looked into by the Trial Court in effective manner.

b) A competent Court is trying the case in a fair manner, thus wha