The right to a fair trial is upheld even amidst technical difficulties in remote hearings.

Mr. Hillol Saha Podder, Ms. Mousumi Das, …. For the respondent.

The instant criminal revision has been preferred for setting aside an order dated 30.4.2025 and the evidence of PW 1 dated 30/.4.2025 and transferred of the Sessions (POSCO case 135 of 2024) arising out of Mayanaguri P.S. case no.351 of 2024 dated 12.8.2024 under Section 6 of the POSCO Act , pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, 2^nd Court cum Special Court under POSCO Act District Jalpaiguri.

It is the contention of the petitioner that a particular date i.e.

April 30, 2025 was fixed for evidence of PW. 1 i.e. victim girl.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that victim/petitioner /accused produced from Jail Custody on virtual mode and learned defence counsel prayed for time. Learned Special Judge has not considered the prayer and directly appointed one Legal Aid Defence Counsel(LADC) and directed to him to represent the accused to Cross-examine the victim girl.

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner/accused was on VC but he could not visible in the VC due to some technical glitches and he was not properly identified by the victim girl. He also could not hear the statement of victim girl. By such a fair trial is not possible, as the instant proceeding has been filed before this Court, it is the apprehension of the petitioner/accused that he would not get any fair trial from particular Session Judge. So he prayed for transfer of the said case to another Special Court under the same Sessions Division.

It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the present petitioner be allowed to carry on the trial; obviously he would not get any justice from the particular Sessions Trial. He submits that the learned Special Judge did not allow the Learned LADC a time, so that the said LADC may contact with the petitioner for proper representation before the Sessions Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner cited a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Anokhilal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2019) 20 SCC 196. He referred me particularly paragraph 20.5 to 23.00 of the said judgment. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the ratio in Anokhilal(Supra) is applicable in this case.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that no illegality is there in the impugned order. Moreover, from the certified copy of the evidenced recorded by the learned Special Judge. It would be revealed that there was justifiable cross-examination by the LADC, who represents the petitioner and the learned Court has correctly recorded the entire evidence of PW.1. He further submits that this is a practice of the accused to delay the trial after understanding the fate of the instant matter.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the de-facto complainant raised strong objection and submits that no illegality and impropriety has committed by the learned Special Judge. Moreover, LADC has been correctly appointed according to law and he justifiably represent the accused.

Having heard on behalf of the parties and also considering the earlier order passed by this Court, it appears that in pursuance to the order a Coordinate Bench of this Court dated May 22, 2025 two reports namely, for correctional home and Sessions Judge concerned was called for. Report of Correctional Home disclosed that under trial prisoner/petitioner was produced before the learned Special Judge on April 30, 2025 through virtual Mode in connection Sessions(POSCO) case no.135 of 2024 arising out of Mainaguri P.S.

case 351 of 2024.

The report of the learned Sessions Judge has place on record through Registry. For proper appreciation of the matter in hand the report of the learned Sessions Judge is