ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE. J. - (1.) BOTH these cases involve identical question of fact and law and as such are disposed of by this common judgment and order.
(2.) SASWATI Samaddar was a Commercial Clerk posted at Kolkata Railway Station. On February 25, 2010, she joined in the said post, after getting employment in the Railway. On April 30, 2010, she was on duty in Counter No. 4 in the Booking Office. One of her friends came to meet her. She was required to go to R.G. Kar Hospital. There was not many crowd at the Counter. SASWATI took leave from the booking Counter and went out of the railway station along with her friend. They moved towards Gajnavi Bridge when her friend boarded an auto-rickshaw and went away. It was about half past five, SASWATI noticed that a girl got down from a taxi and was proceeding to the bridge in nervous condition. The girl was wearing skimpy dress which attracted SASWATI"s attention. The girl did not have slippers on and her hair was unfastened. She was found to be terror stricken having her both hands folded on her chest. SASWATI called her. The girl ignored the call and tried to proceed fast. SASWATI called her again, then the girl asked her about the way to Station. On inquiry she disclosed in Hindi that she wanted to go to Satna in Madhya Pradesh. SASWATI informed her that no train used to go for Satna from the said Station. At that moment, the girl with folded hands asked SASWATI to save her and help her to go to Satna. Looking at the girl, SASWATI was very much shocked particularly noticing her dress as quite obscure. She took her to the Railway Booking Counter and informed her colleagues. Her boss, Mr. Shome Chowdhury advised her to approach G.R.P. Office. By that time SASWATI already became aware that the girl fled away from Sonagachhi, a Red Light area in Kolkata. The Railway staff gave her a white shirt, black trousers being the booking office uniform. SASWATI took her to bathroom so that she could change her dress. After the girl put on the uniform, SASWATI took her to G.R.P. Office. The G.R.P. informed her that it was within the jurisdiction of Kolkata Police. SASWATI rang up Immoral Traffic Department, Lalbazar and informed about the incident. At about 6.45 p.m. two officers in plainclothes along with a lady officer came and questioned the girl. The girl was feeling very nervous. She finally narrated everything in detail. The Police got a Rescue Memo prepared which was signed by the railway staff including SASWATI. The girl was named as Priti Banshal, respondent No. 3 herein. The I.T officers lodged a complaint at Ultadanga Police Station having jurisdiction over the Gajnavi Bridge area. The Police produced the girl before the Child Welfare Committee, Kolkata on the next day. The Child Welfare Committee, Kolkata interrogated the girl and recorded her statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The statement of the girl so made before the Police as well as Child Welfare Committee reveals as under:- Priti was a resident of Satna in the State of Madhya pradesh. In or about February 2010 she went to get vegetables from the house of Lata Singh being three / four houses away from her house. She did not know what Lata Singh had done to her. Facts remain, she got fainted. When she regained from her sense she found herself in a car in the company of Lata and a male person whom she did not know. After spending two days and two nights in the car they took her to the hotel at Kalighat at Calcutta. After that Asha Singh and Nitu Singh went to a Kolkata hotel along with Tarun Singh and Amar Singh. They purchased her. Asha Singh and Nitu Singh took her to Sangambari at Sonagachi. Tarun Singh and his father used to beat her up. Asha and Nitu told her that they had bought her for two lac rupees and as such she should not try to escape from there. They also used to beat her badly. She was often kept under lock and key so that she could not escape. On April 30, 2010 at about 5.30 p.m. she somehow escaped and caught a taxi and went to Kolkata Railway Station. She was dropped far away from the station. She started crying when a lady Rail employee took her to her office and informed the Police Station who rescued her. She should be sent to her parents as soon as possible. She was temporally kept in the custody of the All Bengal Women"s Union wherefrom she was transferred to "Sanlaap" at Narendrapore for her future rehabilitation in terms of an order passed by (CWC) dated June 24, 2010. The Police caused the investigation. The Police Team went to Madhya Pradesh as would appear from the report of Sadhan Ghosh the respondent No. 2 above named dated September 2, 2010. The report of Mr. Ghosh reveals as under :- On August 26, 2010 the Police Team went to Satna and Raya at Madhya Pradesh. They went to Neheru Basti along with a constable of Kotwali Police Station. They went to the house of Lalman Banshal, the father of Priti. Lalman was staying with his son Bikash. Lalman was a alcoholic, he used to sell country liquor and assist his brother Chandan in the matter of cutting and selling of pork. He had four daughters and three sons. His wife maintained herself by doing daily labour. The local people could not give any particulars of the whereabouts of the girls or the wife of Lalman. Lalman stated, his wife Gita was at Satna along with youngest son and daughter Pinky. At the end of the investigation they found that out of four daughters of Lalman, one was married and other three were not seen with their parents since sometime past. Nobody could give details of the daughters. There was no record in the Police Station. Previously Priti and Pinky used to work as domestic help. Gita earned her living by performing as causal labour in various places of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. The sons of Lalman were also abandoned. They used to work as land labour. Lalman did not take any responsibility towards his family and abandoned his children. Prem Lata was found trafficking Priti. According to Mr. Ghosh, it was not safe for Priti to stay with her parents as she might fall victim and re-trafficked again to hush up evidence.
(3.) THE respective petitioners being the accused in the said criminal case filed these two applications inter alia asking for transfer of the said case from the Court of Additional District Judge, Sealdah to any other appropriate Court. THE grounds mentioned in the said application are quoted below :- C.R.R. 457 " i. For that, there cannot be had a fair and impartial adjudication of the Sessions Case No.11(9) of 2010 before the Ld. ADJ at Sealdah. ii. For that, in any event it is a fit case for transfer of Sessions Case No.11(9) of 2010 to any other Court of equal jurisdiction." C.R.R. 458 "i. For that, there cannot be had a fair and impartial adjudication of the Sessions Case No.11(9) of 2010 before the Ld. ADJ at Sealdah. ii. For that, it would be expedient in the interest of justice if both the said Sessions Case No.87 of 2009 and Sessions Case No.11(9) of 2010 are adjudicated by a single judge at Learned City Sessions Court at Calcutta. iii. For that, in any event it a fit case for transfer of Sessions Case No.11(9) of 2010 to any other Court of equal jurisdiction." Mr. Lokesh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the Prem Lata and Mr. Mithun Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Asha Singh both alleged bias as against the learned Judge. According to them, the learned Judge was not conducting the case in impartial way. Whatever applications were filed from time to time by and on behalf of the accused were dismissed without going into the merits of the same. The learned Judge refused to consider the Medical Report which would convincingly show that the victim was a major girl and the offence alleged to have been committed could not be sustained. In short, they expressed doubt over a fair and impartial adjudication of the case. The learned counsel contended that the learned District Judge called for the records in a Revisional Application. The learned Judge blatantly declined to send the records before the learned District Judge.;