Layek Ali @ Laltu vs State Of West Bengal

This is an application challenging a criminal proceeding including an order dated 12.03.2018 passed therein.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not praying for quashing of the proceeding in which a charge-sheet was submitted under Section 21(c), 25, 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the proceeding is dismissed as not pressed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits as follows. After submission of charge-sheet against the petitioner and some other co-accused on 28.02.2018, the learned Special Court was pleased to take cognizance of the offences and issued warrant of arrest against the petitioner and others. On the next date i.e., on 12.03.2018 without recording any satisfaction regarding abscondence of the petitioner as contemplated under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal procedure, the learned Special Court issued an order of proclamation against the petitioner and another. This cannot be sustained in law. The orders passed in 2018 are challenged in this revision. The same has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code.

Learned Public Prosecutor, assisted by Mr. Madhusudan Sur, learned Advocate, submits as follows. If an order passed in 2018 is challenged in a revision, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has to be filed along with that application. No such application for condonation of delay has been filed in this case. Only by changing nomenclature, the contents of the revisional application cannot be altered. Besides, a prima facie case is made out against the present petitioner as it would be evident from a plain reading of the charge-sheet. On 12.03.2018 the learned Special Judge clearly recorded satisfaction that the accused had absconded and that is why he proceeded to issue an order of proclamation against the petitioner.

I have heard the submissions of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the State and perused the revision petition and the application for extension of interim order.

It appears that although cognizance of the offences was taken on 28.02.2018 and warrant of arrest was issued on the same day against the petitioner and another, the same could not be executed against the petitioner. As would be evident from the subsequent order dated 12.03.2018, the learned Special Judge perused the materials and the report forwarded by the Inspector-in-Charge of Kaliachak Police Station stating that the warrantees were not found at their place of residence. After considering the materials on record, the learned Special Judge went to record his satisfaction that the petitioner and another accused person had absconded.

In view of the gravity of the allegations and the fact that the petitioner and other accused were absconding far long, there was no option left open to the learned Special Judge but to issue an order of proclamation. As such, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order.

Besides, the petitioner cannot circumvent the ordinary course of law by filing revision petition beyond time and without praying for condonation of delay. As has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court that nomenclature of an application is not important, what is important is the content. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors, (1998) 5 SCC 749.

It is quite significant that although the order of proclamation was issued in the year 2018, the petitioner remained untraced and did not take any step regarding issuance of orders of warrant and proclamation till 2021.

In view of the above, I do not find any merit of this application. Accordingly, the revisional application and the application for extension of interim order are dismissed.

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

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