Subhasis Dasgupta - (1.)Impugned Order No. 24 dated 10th Dec., 2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 5th Court, Malda in Sessions Case No. 404/2017 under Sections 147/ 148/ 149/ 323/ 325/ 326/ 332/ 333/ 353/186/379/427/435/436/506 rejecting the prayer for discharge is the subject matter of challenge in this revisional application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(2.)Learned advocate for the revisionist submitted that in course of investigation no strong materials could be collected against the revisionists revealing their involvement in the instant crime. Thus in the absence of any strong incriminating materials being collected during investigation, it would be an abuse of the process of the Court, if accused persons were made to face trial with insufficient materials. It was also contended by the revisionists that investigating agency proceeded to bank upon statement of witnesses collecting their statements about eight(8) months after the date of registration of the case, and those witnesses are pocket witnesses of the investigating agency, and no credence could be attached on their statements for their criminal backgrounds. The materials thus collected against the revisionists were highly improbable, from which a reasonable presumption of commission of offence against the revisionists/petitioners, could not be easily drawn, without which the revisionists/petitioners ought not to be put up for trial for sustaining the agony of trial. Thus revisionists proposed for discharge.
(3.)Learned advocate representing the State repelling the submission raised by the revisionists submitted that enough materials were there, which were collected during the course of investigation, revealing a prima facie case to exist against the revisionists/petitioners justifying rejection of prayer for discharge, and it was rightly done by the learned Court below.