I C P A HEALTH PRODUCT PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
LAWS(CAL)-1996-3-19
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on March 28,1996

I.C.P.A.HEALTH PRODUCT PVT.LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The revisional application was filed to quash the complaint case started on the basis of an application under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. being C/183/95 pending before the Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Calcutta. The O.P.No. 2 being the complainant in the revisional case made his appearance on 8-6-95. On 14-6-95 there was a hearing over extension of interim order in presence of the Ld. Advocates appearing for the petitioners O.P.No. 1 as also O.P.No. 2 and the matter was directed to appear as contested application on 30-6-95. On the said date the matter was adjourned. Subsequently, it was fixed for hearing being a Specially fixed matter on 5-1-96. On the said date none appeared in spite of repeated calls while the Ld. Advocates appearing for O.P.No. 1 and O.P.No. 2 were present. The matter was heard at length and revisional application was dismissed on merit on the said date.
(2.)On 2-2-96 an application for recalling of the said order dated 5-1-96 was made by the petitioners being an application under Section 482 Cr. P.C.
(3.)The case of the petitioners as appearing in the recall application is that the grounds taken in the revisional application could not be argued on 5-1-96 due to non-appearance of any of the Advocates appointed on his behalf. It is contended that on 4-1-96 the matter appeared in the Combined List and it was shown as specially fixed for hearing on 5-1-96 at 2 P.M. The Advocate for the petitioner namely, Shri Joydi Kar could not attend Court on 4-1-96 and 5-1-96 due to his mother's illness. The Clerk of the Ld. Advocate who was to look after matter also missed the matter in the List as shown on 4-1-96. The petitioners also engaged two other Advocates, namely, Shri Anindya Kr. Mitra and Shri Asim Kr. Roy. Shri Mitra was not contacted on 4-1-96 and as he was not apprised of matter, he could not also appear when the hearing was taken up on 5-1-96. The other Advocate, namely, Shri Asim Kr. Roy, who was appearing in the matter also did not appear on 5-1-96 as he did not get necessary instruction. It is submitted that Shri Asim Kr. Roy, the Ld. Advocate was informed by his Clerk on 5-1-96 that the matter was going un-represented when Shri Roy went to the Court but by then order was already passed and signed.
;


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