DEBI PROSAD DEY,J. - (1.) Challenge in this revisional application is the order dated 2nd November, 2017 passed by learned Judge Central Bureau of Investigation Court (Special), Alipore, South 24 Parganas in special case no. 3/2012 whereby and where under learned Judge has specially observed that the application for discharge has been "not pressed" by the petitioner and thereafter framed charge against all the accused persons and fixed schedule for examination of the witnesses.
(2.) Learned senior Counsel Mr. Ghosh appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that an application for discharge was filed by the present petitioner but the said application was not taken up for consideration and learned trial Judge has erroneously recorded that such application was 'not pressed' by the present petitioner. It is further submitted that in fact another accused 'not pressed' his application for discharge and presumably being misguided, learned trial Judge has recorded that the application of the present petitioner was 'not pressed'. Learned senior Counsel further contended that an opportunity of hearing should be given to the present petitioner so that the petitioner may canvass his legitimate claim of being discharged from the case under reference. Mr. Ghosh further contended that denial of any such opportunity amounts to denial of justice to the present petitioner who has been prevented from canvassing his case of the discharge from the case under reference.
(3.) Learned Advocate Mr. Asraf Ali appearing on behalf of the Central Bureau of Investigation contended that the order dated 2nd November, 2017 clearly revealed that all the accused persons were present along with the learned Counsels and learned trial Judge after hearing of the learned Counsels framed charge against all the accused persons including the present petitioner. It is submitted that contents of charge were read over and explained to all the accused persons present in Court in presence of their learned Counsel to which they pleaded 'not guilty' and claimed to be tried. Mr. Ali further contended that in fact the present petitioner never agitated about his application of discharge in the trial Court and thereby the petitioner has forfeited his right to be heard on the point of discharge.;