SIBU CHOWDHURY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under section 397/401 read with section 482 Cr.P C the petitioner figured as accused No. 6 has challenged the series of orders passed by the learned Judge, 3rd Special Court at Calcutta in Case No. 2 of 1974 mainly on two grounds. The first ground is that the learned Judge, after framing of charges did not give any opportunity in terms of section 246 of the Code to the present petitioner to produce a list of witnesses for cross-examination but the P. W. 1 was produced for cross-examination. The second ground is that the matter is of 1974 and is long pending and the present petitioner is unnecessarily harassed in this long pending case, which should be dropped.

(2.) Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner pointing out the provisions of sub-sections (4) and (5) of section 246 of the Code made a forceful argument in support of his contention that after the framing of charges it is incumbent upon the Court to call for a list of the prosecution witnesses to be produced for cross-examination by the defence and thereafter, to proceed in accordance with law. It is contended that such an action was not taken after the charges were framed on 12. 7. 85. Mr. Roy placing reliance on a Division Bench judgment of the Karnataka High Court reported in 1992 Crl.LJ 24 (State of Karnataka v. S. Dhandapani Modaliar) argued that sufficient time must intervene between framing of charges and statement of accused about his desire of cross-examination required under section 246(5) of the Code. In support of his argument Mr. Roy also placed his reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 1992 Crl.LJ 2836 (Khaggendranath Chattopadhyay v. Samsud Huda and Ors.). Placing the above two judgments, Mr. Roy contended that the Court is required to ascertain the wish of the accused before fixing the date of cross-examination of all the prosecution witnesses.

(3.) However, it is argued on behalf of the State that the Court below by an order dated 6. 2. 97 actually gave such an order and as such, there is no reason to challenge the series of orders passed in this case.