- (1.) The petitioner has preferred this revision under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the judgement and order dated March 27, 2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track 1st Court, City Sessions Court, Calcutta, by which learned Judge of the court below affirmed the order passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 5th Court, Calcutta on March 4, 2014 in G. R. Case No. 1077 of 2007.
(2.) The backdrop of preferring the present revision by the petitioner is as follows: - The Opposite Party No.2 filed a petition of complaint against the present petitioner and the New Indian Glass Works (Cal) Pvt. Ltd. before the court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta praying for forwarding the same to the Officer-in-charge of Hare Street Police Station in terms of the provisions of Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for registration of the First Information Report and conducting investigation. Accordingly, Hare Street Police Station Case No. 203 dated May 13, 2007 was registered under Sections 420/406/467/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code. The police conducted the investigation and ultimately submitted charge sheet before the court of learned Magistrate on February 20, 2008. On March 6, 2008 the charge sheet was presented before the court of learned Magistrate disclosing offence under Section 420/406/467/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioner. On July 25, 2011 the petitioner filed an application before the court of learned Magistrate under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for discharge. On January 11, 2012 the Opposite Party No.2 filed an application before the court of learned Magistrate praying for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On March 4, 2014 learned Magistrate gave direction for further investigation of the criminal case under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure without granting any relief to the present petitioner under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The said order dated March 4, 2014 passed by learned Magistrate was challenged by the petitioner before the court of Sessions by preferring criminal revision No. 45 of 2014. On March 27, 2015 learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track 1st Court, City Sessions Court, Calcutta disposed of the said criminal revision by affirming the order passed by learned Magistrate with regard to further investigation of the criminal case. The judgement and order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge on March 27, 2015 in Criminal Revision No. 45 of 2014 is under challenge in this revision.
(3.) With the above factual matrix Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel for he petitioner contends that the Opposite Party No.2 prayed for further investigation of the criminal case after almost three years of filing of the charge sheet, though the Opposite Party No.2 was duly informed of the result of investigation by the Investigating Officer on December 25, 2008 as reflected in Column No. 10 of the charge sheet. Mr. Ghosh has conceded fairly that the Investigating Officer has not seized any document in connection with the criminal case as reflected from Column No. 11 of the charge sheet. According to Mr. Ghosh, there is already delay of almost seven years in commencement of trial of the criminal case after submission of the charge sheet and the order of further investigation passed by learned Magistrate and affirmed by learned Sessions Judge will further delay the entire proceedings and thereby the petitioner will be highly prejudiced. Mr. Ghosh has urged this court to give direction to the Investigating Officer, if the order of further investigation is affirmed by this court, for consideration of relevant documents which will be produced on behalf of the petitioner in course of further investigation of the case.;