STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD Vs. SANJIB NATH; STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As these appeals arise from the common judgment and order of acquittal dated 04.08.2014 and from the same police report case (PRC) being GR. 311 of 2013 culminating to the trial on the common charge framed on 13.09.2010 under Sections 409/477-A/109 of the I.P.C against all the accused persons, the respondents herein, they are taken up together for purpose of disposal by a common judgment and order.

(2.) After the trial, the accused persons namely, Sri Raju Ranjan Bhattacharee, Sri Sachindra Chandra Roy, Sri Jyoti Prakash Chakraborty had been convicted under Sections 409/109/477-A/120-B of the I.P.C. and other accused persons Sri Bidhu Bhusan Ghosh, Sri Gopal Datta, Sri Benulal Roy, Sri Biplab Dhar Choudhury, Sri Amitava Adhikari, Sri Sujit Kumar and Sri Sanjib Nath had been conviction under Section 109 read with Section 409 and 120-B of the I.P.C. and they were sentenced as consequence of the conviction. All those convicts filed separate appeals being Criminal Appeals No.10 of 2014, 11 of 2014, 12 of 2014, 13 of 2014, 14 of 2014, 15 of 2014, 17 of 2014, 18 of 2014, 19 of 2014 and 20 of 2014 in the court of the Addl. Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar and those appeals were being heard together. As stated, all these appeals arise out of one judgment of the trial court but all on a sudden the appellate court segregated Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2014 filed by Sanjib Nath and Criminal Appeal No.20 of 2014 filed by Sri Sujit Kr. Roy and passed the impugned judgment dated 04.08.2014 in those appeals by acquitting the respondent No.1 in the Criminal Appeals herein. These appeals have been filed by the victim of the offence namely, Tripura State Cooperative Bank Ltd. under proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C.

(3.) Mr. Debashis Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that for such segregation and disposal, the prosecution has suffered serious prejudice as all the accused persons are in the web of the crime or abetting the principle crime. This nature of segregation strikes at the very purpose of the common trial. If the web is broken, the other accused persons would take undue advantage from the finding on acquitting the accused respondents herein. The impact would be far more worse in the prosecution case. Hence, for procedural fairness to ensure the justice it warrants that the impugned common judgment is interfered with by this Court.