Disposed

Anil Bhuwalka @ Anil Kumar Bhuwalka v. the State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC10 Dec 2020CRR/1729/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this revisional application regarding a pending sessions case under Sections 306, 34, and 120B IPC, the High Court noted an inordinate delay exceeding seven years. With consent of the State, the petitioner requested expedited disposal. The trial court was directed to conclude the trial within one year without unnecessary adjournments.

What did the court decide?

The trial court was directed to conclude the trial within one year from the next date of hearing without granting unnecessary adjournments.

Anil Bhuwalka @ Anil Kumar Bhuwalka Vs the… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Calcutta HC (2020)

¶1

sForm No. J(2)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side

¶3

Present:

¶4

The Hon’ble Justice Jay Sengupta

¶5

CRR 1729 of 2020

¶6

Anil Bhuwalka @ Anil Kumar Bhuwalka Vs.

¶7

State of W.B.

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mrs. Sinthia Bala

¶9

: Mr. Diptendu Banerjee

¶10

For the State : Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Ld. APP : Ms. Sujata Das

¶11

Heard on: 10^th December, 2020

¶12

Judgment on : 10^th December, 2020

¶13

The Court :

¶14

This is an application praying for expeditious disposal of a sessions case.

¶15

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. The petitioner is an accused in the present case where a charge-sheet was submitted under Section 306 read with Section 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Although the FIR was lodged in

¶16

¶17

2010 and the charge-sheet was submitted also in the year 2010, the proceeding could not be concluded yet. A charge was framed in 2015. Out of the total twenty seven witnesses only four witnesses have been examined till date. The last time a witness was examined was in 2018. The defacto complainant never turned up to depose as a witness. The proceeding has remained pending for no fault on the part of the present petitioner.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that the State would not come in the way if a direction is passed to expedite the proceeding.

¶19

I have heard the submissions of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the State and have perused the revision petition.

¶20

No one will be prejudiced if an appropriate direction is passed in this regard.

¶21

It appears that an inordinate delay has taken place in the trial of the present case. Whoever is responsible for the delay, the proceeding needs to be expedited.

¶22

In view of the above and in the interest of justice, I request the learned trial Court to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties, preferably within a period of one year from the next date of hearing.

¶23

¶24

With these observations, the revisional application is disposed

¶25

of.

¶26

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied to the parties expeditiously, if applied for.

¶27

(Jay Sengupta,J.)

¶28

ssi

Anil Bhuwalka @ Anil Kumar Bhuwalka v. the State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Bhuwalka @ Anil Kumar Bhuwalka v. the State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tata Motor Finance Limited Vs State of West Bengal

Krishnendu Sarkar Vs State of West Bengal and Another

Supriya Bouri Vs State of West Bengal

Anurup Roy and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Dilip Kumar Bhattacharjee @ Dilip Bhattacharjee & Ors. Vs Sudeep Kumar Kanjilal

Abdul Bari & Ors. Vs State of West Bengal