- (1.) THE State of West Bengal in this composite revisional application has impugned order no. 137 dated 21/3/89 and order no. 139 dated 30/3/89 as passed by the learned Judge, City Sessions Court, 13th Bench, Calcutta in Sessions trial No. 1 of November, 1987 (Sessions case No. 5/87 ). The State of west Bengal also prayed for a transfer of the Sessions case to some other Bench of the City Sessions Court since the learned Judge while refusing the prayer of the State of West Bengal in effecting correction of certain mistakes in the recording of evidence of P. W. 34 Sub Inspector s. S. Prasad and in not framing proper questions in the examination of the accused Mir Mohammad Omar alias. Md. Omar under Section 313 cr. P. C. has given out a stubborn attitude which speaks of a closed mind and the State apprehends that it shall not get a fair trial and proper justice from the said Court. In the other revisional application filed by sm. Anushila Devi who claims hereself to be a sister of the deceased mahesh Kumar Agarwal and as a party interested, she seeks transfer of the case from the 13th Bench to same other Bench in the City Sessions division on the apprehension that there would not be a fair trial in the case since the learned Judge has acted with bias. Earlier she filed an application before the Chief Judge, City Sessions Court but then the chief Judge expressed the view that he had no authority to effect transfer of this case.
(2.) WHEN the matter was placed before us for hearing we were given to understand by the learned Advocate General that a correction slip was filed by the Investigating Officer, P. W. 34 in presence of the special Public Prosecutor to effect certain corrections in the deposition of the P. W. 34 after he was examined on several dates. We did not find on a perusal of the records, the correction slip but it seemed clear enough that on the basis of the said correction slip submitted, many corrections were effected though in respect of some of the suggested corrections, the learned Judge allowed the deposition to remain as it is and refused to effect any correction whatsoever. In that context we called for an explanation from the leqrned Judge.
(3.) THE learned Judge in his explanation dated 25/4/89 stated as follows :- "the correction slip as referred to has not been properly filed. It is not signed by anybody. The case No. or the Court No. has not been mentioned in it. Nor any petition has been filed by the prosecution along with such concerned correction slip. Even the copy of the same has not been served upon the defence advocates. Still then as many as 16 typographical mistakes have already been corrected out of 25 mistakes as per correction slip. Other mistakes are not typographical mistakes and in the name of correction the evidence already recorded cannot be changed. Soother mistakes have not been corrected. If any point is left out in the evidence, prosecution could have made a prayee, for re-examination of the witnesses prior to the evidence on prosecution side was declared closed. Unsigned correction slip in 3 Loose sheets could not be sent earlier as the case record was forwarded in hurry and the said correction slip is now enclosed herewith. ";