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

The Hon’ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta C.R.R. 668 of 2018 Netai Sil Versus The State of West Bengal & Another For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranadeb Sengupta, Adv.

For the KMC : Mr. Anindya Sundar Chatterjee, Adv.

Mr. Goutam Dinda, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury, Adv.

Heard on : 13.06.2025 Judgment on : 25.06.2025 Ajay Kumar Gupta, J:

1. By filing this present application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner/convict assailed the judgment and order dated 20.03.2018 passed by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Bichar Bhawan, Calcutta in connection with Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 2016 whereby the Learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Judgment and Order dated 21.09.2016 passed by the Learned Municipal Magistrate, 3rd Court, Calcutta in M.F. 331 of 2014 under Section 401(A) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980.

2. By the said Judgment and Order dated 21.09.2016, the Learned Municipal Magistrate convicted the present petitioner and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.

3. The brief facts of the case are relevant for disposal of this instant case as under:

3a. On the basis of a complaint lodged by Assistant Engineer (Civil), Building Department, Borough - III with the Officer-in-Charge of Beliaghata Police Station regarding illegal construction, an FIR was registered. Upon completion of investigation, Charge Sheet has been submitted against the petitioner and one other accused for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 401(A) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. During the trial, the prosecution, in support of its case, examined 4 witnesses and also produced documentary evidence marked as Exhibit 1 to 9.

3b. Upon considering both oral and documentary evidence, the Learned Magistrate found the petitioner guilty of the charge framed and, accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid.

3c. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said impugned order of conviction and sentence, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal before the Learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta by filing an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 98/2016. The said appeal was admitted and transferred to the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court – II, Bichar Bhawan, Calcutta, for its disposal.

3d. After conclusion of hearing of both the parties, Learned Judge finally affirmed the said impugned Judgment and the appeal was dismissed on contest without cost. Hence, this present Criminal Revisional application.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently argued and submitted that prosecution witnesses P.Ws. 1 and 2 were the local witnesses. During their examination-in-chief, they failed to identify the petitioner or the owner, nor did they depose anything incriminating against him. Despite this, the prosecution did not declare them hostile and is, therefore, bound by their evidence.

5. It was further submitted that the P.W. 3, the Investigating Officer did not furnish any documentary evidence to prove that Sanjay Das was the promoter. Accordingly, he was acquitted. He further could not produce any document to show that the present petitioner is the owner and responsible for such illegal construction by reliable evidence. Further, no neighbours supported the case of the prosecution.

6. It was further submitted by the learned counsel that the Exhibit Nos. 3 and 9 (photographs of the construction site and day to day inspection report) relied by the prosecution are not confronted with the petitioner in his examination under Section 313 of the CrPC. Accordingly, the Learned Trial Court has violated the principles of free and fair criminal trial by not giving an o