- (1.) Since the question raised in the revisional application as to the right of the complainant in a criminal action to get himself examined as a witness and denial on the part of the Court has arisen, this Court proposes to dispose of the application upon consideration of the factual background and legal proposition without serving fresh notice on the opposite parties.
(2.) The petitioner herein is the complainant of C. Case No.489 of 2003 in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Sealdah. Since his lawyer could not be found available on 15.2.2005, the learned Trial Court discharged the opposite parties/accused by invoking the provisions of Section 245 of the Cr. P. C. although the petitioner/complainant was present in Court in person. The order was challenged in a motion being Criminal Motion No.120 of 2005. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Court No-II, Sealdah was pleased to dismiss the motion and thereby affirmed the order passed by the learned Trial Court. Heard Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner.
(3.) It is found that the examination of the witnesses in the trial was not at all started. On 15.2.2005, the complainant/petitioner was present in person but the learned Trial Court discharged the accused/opposite parties without giving him any opportunity to be examined as a witness. It appears that the learned Court did not inform the petitioner/complainant that he could be examined as P.W.1 in that case on that particular date although other witnesses remained absent and in absence of his lawyer. Even in worst case, the learned Court could have imposed an amount of cost for the laches on the part of the petitioner/complainant. In stead of doing so, the learned Court being swayed by the idea that the complainant indulged himself in frequent adjournments, passed the order whereby discharged the opposite parties/accused. The result obviously has occasioned glaring miscarriage of justice which should be interfered with.;