R.K.BAG, J. - (1.) The petitioner, Pradip Kumar More, has challenged the judgment and order dated September 22, 2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 3rd Court, Bichar Bhawan, Calcutta, in Criminal Revision No.147/2010 by affirming the order dated May 18, 2010 passed by learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, in connection with G.R. No.1072 of 2010 by preferring revision being CRR 109 of 2011. The petitioner, Sushil Kumar Sureka has also challenged the judgment and order dated September 22, 2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 3rd Court, Bichar Bhawan, Calcutta, in Criminal Revision No.133/2010 by affirming the order dated May 18, 2010 passed by learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, in connection with G.R. No.1072 of 2010 by filing revision being CRR 110 of 2011. On the other hand, the State of West Bengal has challenged the order dated November 9, 2011 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court, Calcutta, in G.R. No.1072 of 2010 by preferring revision being CRR 4013 of 2011. Since all three revisional applications arise out of the same criminal proceeding, I am inclined to dispose of all the revisional applications by this common judgment.
(2.) The backdrop of the three revisional applications is as follows:- (a) One Sumit Sur, Station Officer, Headquarters Fire Station, West Bengal Fire and Emergency Services filed one written complaint before the Officer-in-Charge of Shakespeare Sarani Police Station on March 24, 2010 on the basis of which the Shakespeare Sarani Police Station Case No.116 dated March 24, 2010 came into existence. The police investigated the said criminal case and submitted charge sheet against the petitioner Pradip Kumar More, the petitioner Sushil Kumar Sureka, the opposite party Sanjay Bagaria (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner-accused persons) and other co-accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 304/308/427/109 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 11C/11L/11J of West Bengal Fire Services Act. (b) On May 18, 2010, the Investigating Officer of the case filed an application before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate praying for issuance of proclamation against the petitioner-accused persons. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate allowed the prayer of the Investigating Officer for issuance of proclamation and publication of the same in the newspaper by an order on May 18, 2010. The said order of learned Magistrate was challenged by the petitioner Pradip Kumar More before the court of sessions by preferring Criminal Revision No.147 of 2010. Similarly, the said order of learned Magistrate was challenged by the petitioner Sushil Kumar Sureka before the court of sessions by preferring Criminal Revision No.133 of 2010. On September 22, 2010 learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track 3rd Court, Bichar Bhawan, Calcutta, disposed of both the revisions by affirming the order passed by learned Magistrate. Both the petitioner Pradip Kumar More and the petitioner Sushil Kumar Sureka have challenged the judgment and order passed in Criminal Revision No.133 of 2010 and Criminal Revision No.147 of 2010 respectively by preferring two separate revisional applications before this court. (c ) I am informed that during stay of operation of the order dated May 18, 2010 passed by learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate by the court of sessions, the petitioner Sushil Kumar Sureka surrendered and the opposite party Sanjay Bagaria was arrested by the police. I am also informed that immediately after disposal of the revisional application by learned Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioner Pradip Kumar More surrendered before the court of learned Magistrate. All the petitioner-accused persons are now on bail granted by the court. During pendency of proclamation against the petitioner-accused persons the Investigating Officer carried out further investigation in connection with the main criminal case and submitted supplementary charge sheet disclosing offences not only under Sections 304/308/427/109 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 11C/11J and 11L of West Bengal Fire Services Act but also under Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner-accused persons. The issue of submitting supplementary charge sheet disclosing offence under Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code was contested before the court of learned Magistrate. On November 9, 2011 learned Magistrate passed an order refusing to take cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner-accused persons. The said order passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court, Calcutta, in G.R. No.1072 of 2010 is challenged by the State of West Bengal by preferring revision being CRR 4013 of 2011.
(3.) Mr. Ayan Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner- accused persons contends that proclamation was not published by following the procedure laid down in Sectrion 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He further submits that clear 30 days time was not granted for appearance of the accused persons for appearance and the date and time was not published in the proclamation. He argues that the petitioner-accused persons pursued legal remedy before the higher court challenging the order of issuance of proclamation by learned Magistrate and as such, those accused persons are not liable to be prosecuted on the allegation of committing offence under Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. Bhattacharya has defended the order passed by learned Magistrate on November 9, 2011 by submitting that the order of proclamation and publication of the same in the newspaper is nullity and learned Magistrate cannot take cognizance of the offence under Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code due to specific bar under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to Mr. Bhattacharya, the supplementary charge sheet disclosing offence under section 174A of the Indian Penal Code cannot be clubbed with the other offences, as the offence punishable under Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code took place long after the incident for which the original criminal proceeding was initiated against the petitioner-accused persons.;