IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION Appellate Side Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta C.R.R. 2027 of 1999 With CRAN/1/2025, CRAN/2/2025, CRAN/3/2025 Anowar Mullick Vs.

The State of West Bengal.

Mr. Tanmay Chowdhury Ms. Sulagna Sarkar …. for the petitioner.

Mr. Debasish Roy, Ld.P.P.

Mr. Koushik Kundu Ms. Jonaki Saha …. for the State HEARD ON : 12.12.2025 JUDGMENT ON : 12.12.2025 Ajay Kumar Gupta, J: -

CRAN NO.1 OF 2025 & CRAN NO.2 OF 2025

1. This instant CRAN no. 1 OF 2025 is an application filed by the petitioner for restoration/recalling of the order dated 27.11.2018 passed by the co- ordinate Bench, thereby dismissing the criminal revisional application for default, and the petitioner further filed an application, being CRAN 2/2025, praying for condonation of delay of 6 years 9 months in preferring the application for restoration/recalling.

2. With regard to the delay, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the matter be disposed of on merit, since this case has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment and order of affirmation by the Session Judge of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court against the petitioner under Section 325 of the IPC.

3. Having heard the submissions of the parties and considering the grounds set forth in the pleadings, this court is of the opinion that since the matter involves conviction and sentence of the Petitioner, the matter should not be dismissed on technical grounds. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay is allowed subject to the condition that the matter will be heard on merits.

4. The applications being CRAN 1/2025 and CRAN 2/2025 are, thus, disposed of.

5. With the above facts and circumstances, the revisional application, being CRR 2027 of 1999, is restored to its original file and number.

Re: CRR 2027 of 1999

6. The petitioner has filed this revisional application under section 401 read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., challenging the correctness, illegality and propriety of the judgment and order dated 3rd December, 1997, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Howrah in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1996.

7. By the said judgment and order the learned Sessions Judge affirmed the order of conviction and sentenced dated 16.04.1996 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Uluberia in connection with GR case no. 107 of 1985 corresponding to TR case no. 124 of 1986.

8. The factual matrix of the case of the petitioner is that one Jahura Khatun had lodged an FIR on 27.02.1985 alleging, inter alia, that there was trouble between her son and the accused persons, and it was alleged that she was assaulted with brick bats when she went to the spot to rescue her son. She further alleged that she was attacked with an iron rod on her leg. She sustained injuries.

9. The police registered Bagnan P.S. case no.9 dated 27.02.1985 and initiated an investigation, which finally culminated in a Charge sheet under section 325/34 of the IPC against the accused persons, including the present petitioner. Accused persons faced trial before the Trial court.

10. To prosecution examined 8 numbers of witnesses to bring home the charges.

The accused was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. However, no defence witness was examined. The trial court, after analysing all the evidence, both oral and documentary as produced by the prosecution, finally concluded that the accused Anowar Mullick, the petitioner herein, was guilty and thereby convicted him in terms of Section 248(2) Cr.P.C. Whereas the learned trial court found the other accused persons “not guilty” and they were acquitted, Anowar Mullick was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 600/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 30 days.

11. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order dated

16.04.1996, the petitioner challenged the same before the Sessions Judge. The same was transferred to the le