SIDDHARTHA CHATTOPADHYAY, J. - (1.) Challenging the legality of the order dated 10th January, 2014, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 5th Court, Calcutta in Case No. 882/2005 under Sections 403, 406, 419, 420, 466 and 471 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the present petitioner has filed an application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of the said proceeding pending before the learned Court below.
(2.) Learned Counsel Mr. P.K. Drolia appearing on behalf of the accused petitioner had contended that the application under Section 245 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been erroneously dealt with by the learned Court below. According to him, the evidence collected beyond the period of four years cannot be looked into in view of Section 245 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He further contended that the said case was initiated in 2005 and even after ten years the said case is still pending. He further added that by virtue of amendment made by State of West Bengal vide Act 24 of 1988 there has been a sea -change so far as Section 245 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is concerned. He argued that statute mandates that it has to be disposed of within four years from the date of appearance of the accused but in this case learned Court below did not adhere to that provision.
(3.) Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party Mr. Uday Chandra Jha had contended that for want of evidence of one IPS Officer the case is pending. He has also contended that the learned Court below has tried his level best to secure the presence of Pijus Pandey, an IPS Officer, who has earlier posted in Calcutta and now he is attached with SPG New Delhi. The said witness did not turn up and as a result the said case is still pending.;