- (1.)By the instant revision under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused petitioners have challenged the proceedings, being Sessions Case No. 41 of 1991, arising out of G. R. Case No. 946 of 1983, pending in the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malda, and the Ratua P. S. Case No. 8 dated 5-7-83 on which the G. R. Case was started, on the ground that there is inordinate delay in the process of conclusion of the trial. In other words, the provision of Article 21 of the Constitution of' India has been offended.
(2.)The scenario on which this revisional application has been moved is that one Abdul Basir of village Malopara, P. S. Ratua. District Malda, on 5-7-83, lodged an F.I.R. with the Ratua Police Station being Ratua P. S. Case No. 8 dated 5-7-83, alleging offence against the accused persons and others under Sections 147, 148, 149, 448, 427, 436, 380, 323, 324, 325, 326 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In the F.I.R. it has been alleged that on 5-7-83 between 6 hours to 8 hours the accused persons numbering 187 and others being armed with deadly weapons raided the village Malopara and in course of such raid a person named Samsul Huda and ten persons were murdered on the spot and 11 persons were seriously injured. There was arson, looting and destruction of the house. The matter was reported on 5-7-83 at 15-35 hours. On the said F. t. R. an investigation was started and G. R. Case No. 946 of 1983 was registered in the Court of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malda.
(3.)From Order No. 1. of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malda, it appears that on the first day twenty five accused persons were produced from custody. From order No. 3 it appears that on 9-7-83 another 17 accused persons were produced from custody. From order No. 4 dated July, 1983, it appears that one accused was produced from custody. Again on 17-7-83 another three accused persons were produced from custody. Ultimately charge-sheet was submitted before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate on 9-12-83 against 106 accused persons and the case was not sent up against 35 accused persons. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences on 9-12-83. The record further shows that on 9-1-84 another accused was brought under arrest. From order dated 11-1-84 it appears that 24 accused persons surrendered before the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate. From Order dated 29-2-84 it appears that another accused surrendered before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate. From Order dated 10-4-84 it appears that the accused persons were brought before the Court under arrest. Again on 14-4-84 another three accused persons were brought under arrest before the Court. On 16-4-84 23 accused persons surrendered before the Court. On 21-1-85 one accused person was brought under arrest. On 28-12-86 one accused person was brought under arrest before the Court. On 15-6-87 another accused person was brought under arrest. Ultimately, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate by order dated 26-7-91 committed the case to the Court of Sessions. It will be apposite to mention here that by instalments the accused persons moved for bail before the Court of Sessions. Originally the record of the Court of the learned S, D. J. M. was called for and again it was sent back and in this process time and again the record was taken to the Court of Sessions at the instance of the accused persons. There is another factor in this matter. Some of the accused persons after enjoying bail jumped the same and thereafter again their presence was secured after arrest and prayer was made on behalf of the accused for bail which was granted. Some of the accused persons could not be produced on the around of sickness and in this process in the Court of the learned S. D. J. M. the time rolled by. The picture is not quite different also in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge to which the case was committed, where the case was registered as Sessions Case No. 41 of 1993. From the order No. 2 dated 29-8-91 it appears that all the accused persons were present before the learned Sessions Judge for confirmation of their bail. From Order No. 4 dated 15-1-92 it appears that out of 96 accused persons who were on bail only three accused persons were present before the Court and 93 were absent by petition. On 25-2-92 out of 96 accused persons 90 were present but 6 were absent. On 8-4-92 all the accused persons were absent. Same thing happened on 5-6-92. On 18-9-92 out of 96 accused persons only 7 were present. The matter was taken up for consideration of the charge but the charge could not be considered because of the absence of the accused persons. From Order No. 11 dated 6-2-93 it appears that only six accused persons were present and the remaining accused persons were absent and warrant of arrest was issued. Even before the Court of the learned Sessions after enjoying the bail the accused jumped the same and warrant of arrest was issued against the erring accused persons. Thereafter some were brought under arrest, some surrendered. From Order No. 12 dated 17-4-93 it appears that out of 96 accused persons 88 were absent. From Order dated 5-6-93 it appears that out of 96 accused persons 9 were present and the remaining 87 were absent. On 26-11-93, 59 accused persons were present but 36 accused persons were absent. From order dated 25-1-94 it appears that 91 accused persons were present, five were absent. From Order dated 19-3-94 it appears that out of 96 accused persons only 4 were present. On 6-6-94, 93 accused persons were present and 3 persons were absent and warrant of arrest was issued. The record shows that at no point of time all the accused persons were present before the Court for the purpose of consideration of the charge.
;