MONOJ MAJUMDAR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
LAWS(CAL)-1983-6-23
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on June 20,1983

MONOJ MAJUMDAR Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

B.C.Bhakrabarti, J. - (1.) This revisional application raises a short question as to the exact time when a sessions trial commences. The question arises under the following circumstances.
(2.) The Chief Judge, City Sessions Court is, under the provisions of the City Sessions Courts Act, the Sessions Judge and the other Judges presiding over the other Benches are deemed to be Additional Sessions Judges. A case being committed to the court of the Chief Judge was assigned to Bench VII of that court for disposal by an order dated 9.7.1981/ 3.8.1981. The learned Judge presiding over that Bench fixed 2.9.1981 for consideration of charge against the accused persons. On the date so fixed the learned Judge after hearing the learned Advocates and considering the documents and other materials was satisfied that a prima facie case against the accused persons under Sections 302/34 Indian Penal Code and under section 3 of the explosive Substances Act was made out. Charges were accordingly framed and read over to the accused individually. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The learned Judge thereafter fixed 2.11.1981 onwards for examination of witnesses in accordance with the serial mentioned in his order dated 8.9.1981. Before 2.11.1981, however, the learned Chief Judge withdrew the case to his file and transferred the same to Bench II for disposal. Before the transferee bench an objection was taken that the withdrawal of the case by the learned Chief Judge and the transfer of the same was bad in law in view of the provisions of Section 409 of the Criminal Procedure Code which permits transfer of a case before the trial had commenced. The learned Judge presiding over the transferee Bench was of the view that the trial in this case had already commenced with the framing of the charge and the taking of the plea and was therefore doubtful whether the order of transfer was competent or not. But since this was an order made by the learned Chief Judge he felt embarrassed and did not say more. Thereupon the petitioners obtained the present Rule.
(3.) Mr. Dutt appearing in support of the Rule contends that the trial of a sessions case commences with the framing of a charge and the taking of the plea by the accused as provided in Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In support of this contention Mr. Dutt argued that the charge having been framed and read out to the accused, the accused may plead guilty to the charge and the court may accepting such plea convict the accused. The conviction it is contended cannot be made until the trial commenced. The learned Judge presiding over the transferee Bench was of the view that the trial in this case had already commenced with the framing of the charge and the taking of the plea and was therefore doubtful whether the order of transfer was competent or not. But since this was an order made by the learned Chief Judge he felt embarrassed and did not say more. Thereupon the petitioners obtained the present Rule. 3. Mr. Dutt appearing in support of the Rule contends that the trial of a sessions case commences with the framing of 11 charge and the taking of the plea by the accused as provided in Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In support of this contention Mr. Dutt argued that the charge having been framed and read out to the accused, the accused may plead guilty to the charge and the court may accepting such plea convict the accused. The conviction it is contended cannot be made until the trial commences.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.