The court rejected a prayer for further adjournment due to repeated delays by the petitioner and dismissed the leave petition as devoid of merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRL.L.P. NO.17/2016 IN CRL.A. NO.31/2016
BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. T. VAIPHEI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
Present:
For the petitioner : Mr. P. Majumder, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. S. Sarkar, P.P., Mr. S. Lodh, Advocate.
25.07.2017.
Heard Mr. P. Majumder, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Sarkar, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and Mr. S. Lodh, the learned counsel for the private respondents.
The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks some more time for amending the cause title of the leave application.
We have seen the record, which reveals that since 22.11.2016, the case has been adjourned on one pretext or another by the petitioner.
The prayer for adjournment is strongly opposed by the learned counsel for the private respondents.
There is force in the objection of the learned counsel for the private respondents. This state of affairs shall not be allowed to continue. Apparently, the petitioner himself is not really interested in prosecuting the case.
The prayer for further adjournment is rejected.
The leave petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Pulak
CRL.L.P. NO.17/2016 IN CRL.A. NO.31/2016
Page 1 of 1
Petitioner
State
Private Respondents
T. Vaiphei
S. Talapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
