SUBRATA CHAKRABORTY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
LAWS(CAL)-1996-10-2
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on October 15,1996

SUBRATA CHAKRABORTY Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The revisional case which arises out of an application under Sections 401 and 482, Cr. P.C. has been filed in order to quash the Special Court Case No. 3 of 1996 pending before the Ld. Judge, 3rd Special Court, Barasat and arising out of G. R. Case No. 42 of 82 being Gosaba P. S. Case No. 5/81, dated 9-12-1981.
(2.)The case of the petitioner in short is that on 9-12-1981 while he was acting as the Clerk-in-Charge of the office of J.L.R.O. at Gosaba, an F.I.R. was lodged by the concerned J.L.R.O. on the ground that there was a shortage of cash to the extent of Rs. 5065.76 which was being handled by the petitioner. The petitioner subsequently surrendered on 4-5-1987 and was enlarged on bail. The charge-sheet was submitted on 10-11-1987. Thereafter, there were so many adjournments and ultimately on 14-6-1996 copies of charge-sheet and other documents excepting voluminous documents were supplied to the accused-petitioner. Earlier the petitioner was suspended in May, 1982 and the departmental proceeding which was started against him is also pending. The trial of the case is yet to begin. Since the submission of charge-sheet at least 32 adjournments have been granted but no effective steps were taken towards the trial of the case.
(3.)It is alleged that the essence of Article 21 of the Constitution, namely, speedy and expeditious trial has been denied to the petitioner for no fault of him. It is alleged that the protracted trial has violated the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution and in accordance with the decisions of several High Courts of India as also the Apex Court, the petitioner is entitled to be discharged and the proceeding against him should be quashed. It is alleged that in spite of submission of charge-sheet on 10-11-1987 there was no taking of cognizance by the Ld. S.D.J.M. concerned even though he directed the copies to be supplied to the petitioner.
3A. I have heard the submissions made by the Ld. Advocate representing the petitioner as also the Ld. Advocate for the State.

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.