- (1.) The present assiduous petitioner showed his extreme patience to face a 'fair trial' for the last two decades and for which he ran from pillar to post, when he experienced that 'fair trial' is a far cry he appeared before this Majestic Portal with a prayer to quash the proceedings of G.R. Case No. 5329 of 1991 arising out of Barrackpore Police Station Case No. 92 dated 31st August, 1991.
(2.) Factual aspects is required to be restated in the interest of effective adjudication. According to the accused petitioner, the alleged offence took place in 1985. The F.I.R. was lodged nearly after six years i.e. in 1991. Investigation started pursuant to such F.I.R. Thereafter charge-sheet was submitted on 12.09.1996. In terms of Section 207 Cr.P.C. he was entitled to get the copies of statements recorded so far and the documents on which the prosecution wants to rely. In such circumstances, it was detected that the case diary was missing. However, the prosecution has delivered copies containing 47 (forty seven) sheets. Curiously enough, in those sheets there was no statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. When attention was drawn to that effect before the Learned Court below, the said Court most evasively and unconvincingly came to a decision that they ought to have raised that plea before the Learned A.C.J.M., Barrackpore. Before passing of that order, Learned Special Court did not notice that for the purpose of getting the materials in case diary, he knocked at the door of this Hon'ble High Court in two occasions and this Hon'ble Court directed the prosecution to serve copy and to conclude the trial within a stipulated period. The said solemn order of this Hon'ble Court neither motivated the prosecution nor the Courts below. The case was committed to the Special Court and when the said Court decided to go for trial with incomplete documents, the accused petitioner prayed for discharge. While disposing of the said application Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court at Barasat observed "it is needless to mention that the different accused persons moved before the Hon'ble High Court on repeatedly but till now there is no direction upon the Court to decide as to whether accused persons should be discharged or not". According to the petitioner, finding of that Special Court is absolutely baseless because the accused petitioner prayed for a direction before the Hon'ble Court to supply copy of the documents on which the prosecution relied.
(3.) It appears from the annexure of the instant petition, which is an order passed by this Hon'ble Court in connection with C.R.R. 2680 of 2007, wherein P.S. Dutta, J., had given direction in such fashion i.e. "I dispose of the application with the direction to the Learned Court to make every endeavour to proceed with the case from day to day if not absolutely impossible and take a special initiative so that the matter brook no further delay and gets disposed of preferably within a period of six months from the date of communication of the order." The said order of the Hon'ble Court was passed on 20th August, 2009. Challenging the said finding of the Learned Court below the accused petitioner came before this forum contending inter alia that the Learned Court below did not consider the order of the Hon'ble Court in its letter and spirit. Decision with Reasons;