- (1.) This revisional application under Sectiosn 401 and 403 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the Code) has been preferred by the petitioner assailing the order dated 21.1.04 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Calcutta in G.R. Case No. 3125 of 1998 under Sections 120B/406/477A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called the I.PC.) and for direction upon the learned Magistrate to complete process of consideration of charge and to complete the trial as expeditiously as possible.
(2.) Learned senior Advocate appearing for the State contended that the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 by adopting a device of making lesser entry of each electronic machine defalcated Rs. 51,62,400.00 as fees in respect of VISA applications from 1.1.96 to 13.10.98 and after a special audit this defalcation was traced out. Accordingly, FIR was lodged on 10th December, 1998 and on the basis of it G. R. Case No. 3125/98 was registered and after charge-sheet it has been transferred to the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Calcutta. Twice earlier this Court was approached, once in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1067 of 2003 at the instance of this petitioner and the other in CRR No. 1749 of 2003 at the instance of opposite parties No. 2 and 3. In Criminal Misc. Case No. 1067 of 2003 this Court by order dated 1st July, 2003 directed the learned Magistrate to dispose of the application under Section 91 of the Code filed by accused persons and thereafter to take up matter for consideration of charge and further directed the learned Magistrate to expedite the trial. Thereafter, the accused opposite party No. 2 and 3 preferred CRR No. 1749/03 challenging the order of the learned Magistrate rejecting their application under Section 91 of the Code and this Court observed that order of the learned Magistrate requires no interference and learned Magistrate was directed to expedite the trial without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either to the parties.
(3.) He contended that the accused persons are causing delay in progress of the trial and are not attending Court regularly and the learned Magistrate also is not taking proper steps for consideration of charge. He contended that an application was filed before the learned Magistrate to take up the matter for consideration of charge on 25.2.04 as 24.2.04 was a. bandh day. But the learned Magistrate without fixing any short date for consideration of charge has fixed the matter on 29.4.04 as the next date. The accused persons have inspected all the documents and therefore, there is no bar to frame charge. As the documents are voluminous copies of all documents were not supplied and they were given inspection of the documents.;