Back
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)
Sumitra Maity – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
JUDGMENT
The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of the first Information Report, the Charge Sheet and the entire proceedings including all orders therein in connection with Digha Mohana Coastal P.S. Case No.10/19 dated 09.04.2019 being S.C. Case No-148 of 2019 & Charge Sheet No-22/19 dated 24/06/2019 under Section 366A/368/370/370A/372/378/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3/4/5/7/9 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 and section 4/8/17/21 of the POCSO Act now pending before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court at Contai, Purba Medinipur (1st Court).
The petitioner’s case is that she was not named in the F.I.R initially but subsequently after completion of Investigation the name of the petitioner has been mentioned in the charge sheet and she has been charged under Section 120B I.P.C. and 21 POCSO Act, 2012 & 3/5/9 of the Immoral Traffic Act.
Mr. Kamalesh Chandra Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is the settled principle of law that offence under the Immoral Trafficking Act should be investigated by the Special Police Officer after due sanction by the State Government by way of gazette notification but
The judgment of acquittal of co-accused persons is not admissible in the trial of another accused. Each case must be decided based on the evidence adduced therein.
The court affirmed that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC should be exercised sparingly, emphasizing that acquittal of a co-accused does not automatically warrant quashing proceedings....
Statements of co-accused, while inadmissible at trial, are relevant for guiding initial investigations, and FIRs cannot be quashed solely on this basis.
The acquittal of co-accused does not bar the prosecution of other accused who have not faced trial, and each case must be decided on its own evidence.
The wide power of the court under Section 216 Cr.P.C. to alter charges at any stage before judgment and the duty of the public prosecutor to apprise the court of any defect in framing charges.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of complying with mandatory provisions under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, the distinction between mandatory and directory p....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
