Disposed

Baidnath Saha v. State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC11 Feb 2021CRR/350/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revisional application for expeditious disposal of NDPS proceedings. The petitioner, an accused in custody since 2019, sought faster framing of charges despite delayed charge sheets. The court directed the trial court to frame charges within three months, emphasizing the unjustified delay.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the trial court to decide on framing of charges within three months from the next date of hearing.

Baidnath Saha Vs State of West Bengal — Narcotics (NDPS) | Calcutta HC (2021)

¶1

103 11.02.2021 rkd Ct. no.32

¶2

C.R.R. 350 of 2021

¶3

In the matter of: Baidnath Saha

¶4

Mr. A. Chatterjee

¶5

…for the petitioner.

¶6

Mr. I. Ali, Mr. Md. Kutubuddin

¶7

…for the State.

¶8

This is an application seeking an expeditious disposal of a proceeding in which a charge sheet was submitted under Section 21(C) of the NDPS Act.

¶9

A copy of the application is served upon Mr. Ali and Mr. Kutubuddin, learned advocates who are present in Court and who ordinarily appear on behalf of the State. They are requested to appear in the matter. Their engagement be regularised by the competent authority of the State.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. The petitioner is an accused in this case. He is in custody since his date of arrest i.e. 21.1.2019. Although the charge sheet was submitted in September, 2019 and the supplementary charge sheet was submitted in June, 2020, till date even the charges have not been framed. The proceeding has largely remained pending for no fault of the present petitioner. The impugned proceeding ought to be expedited in the interest of justice.

¶11

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

¶12

¶13

No prejudice will be caused to anyone if a direction for an expeditious disposal of the proceeding is passed in this case.

¶14

It appears that the some delay has been occasioned in concluding the impugned proceeding, especially considering the custody of the petitioner since January, 2019.

¶15

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 and in particular, decide the question of framing of charge at the earliest, preferably within a period of three months from the next date of hearing.

¶16

With these observations, the revisional application is disposed of.

¶17

Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings.

¶18

(Jay Sengupta, J.)

Baidnath Saha v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baidnath Saha v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs Anju Das Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Bhola Sardar @ Mongol Vs State of West Bengal

Tarapada Bera Vs State of West Bengal

Chadera @ Chandera Bibi Sekh Vs State of West Bengal

Fantush Shaw @ Shyam Kr. Shaw and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Jasimuddin Mondal Vs State of West Bengal