Disposed

Sudeb Mondal @ Sedeb Mandol v. State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC15 Mar 2021CRR/645/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revisional application seeking expeditious disposal of a narcotics case where the petitioner remained in custody for over two years while trial proceedings were delayed without witness examinations. The High Court directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings within one year.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the learned Trial Court to conclude the proceeding as expeditiously as possible within one year from the next date of hearing.

Sudeb Mondal @ Sedeb Mandol Vs State of West Bengal — Narcotics (NDPS) | Calcutta HC (2021)

145 15.03.2021 NB

CRR 645 of 2021

Ct. No. 32

In the matter of:- Sudeb Mondal @ Sudeb Mandol …petitioner

¶5

Ms. Minoti Gomes, Mr. J. I. Hossain. …for the petitioner.

¶6

Mr. Imran Ali, Mr. Mirza Firoj Ahmed Begg. …for the State.

¶7

This is an application seeking an expeditious disposal of a proceeding in which a charge sheet was submitted under Sections 21(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

¶8

Let a copy of this application be served upon Mr. Imran Ali Datta and Mr. Mirza Firoj Ahmed Begg, learned Counsels who ordinarily appear on behalf of the State and who are present in Court today. Their engagement may be regularised by the competent authority of the State in due course.

¶9

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. The petitioner is an accused in this case. He is in custody since the date of his arrest i.e. 23.08.2018. Although case was started as far back as on 23.08.2018 and a charge sheet was submitted on 14.02.2019, till date the proceeding could not be concluded. There are about fifteen prosecution witnesses in this case as mentioned in the charge sheet. On 27.07.2019, charges were framed. Yet, even a single witness has not been examined till date. The matter has remained pending for no fault of the present petitioner.

¶10

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that in the interest of justice, the impugned proceeding ought to be expedited.

¶11

I have heard the submissions of the learned Counsels appearing

¶12

¶13

on behalf of the petitioner and the State and have perused the revision petition.

¶14

It appears that an inordinate delay was occasioned in concluding the proceeding, especially considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 23.08.2018.

¶15

In view of the above and in the interest of justice, I request the learned Trial Court to conclude the proceeding 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.

¶16

With these observations, the revisional application is disposed of.

¶17

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

¶18

(Jay Sengupta, J.)

Sudeb Mondal @ Sedeb Mandol v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudeb Mondal @ Sedeb Mandol v. 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

Kalyan Krishna Nandi Vs Nita Nandi ( Mani) & Anr.

Kalyan Krishna Nandi Vs Nita Nandi ( Mani) & Anr.

Alamgir Molla Vs State of West Bengal

Vikrant Wadhwa Vs State of West Bengal and Another

Hasibul Islam@Harshibul Islam and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal

Mahamadul Hassan Vs State of West Bengal