Rekha Kurarka vs State Of West Bengal & Anr.

Heard Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. Bhattacharjee inviting my attention to the deposition taken

in Sessions Case No. 43 of 2014 of the petitioner, Rekha Murarka. She was examined in chief on 02.08.2017 but it was deferred under Section 231 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure. Her evidence was deferred on the prayer of the accused but the learned Judge while recording in the deposition

sheet has not clearly mentioned as to whether it has been deferred on behalf of the defence or on behalf of the prosecution and it is also not

understood as to whether the examination-in-chief of PW-2 has been concluded. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge must have been mindful of all

these facts that under what circumstances examination of the witness on dock is deferred.

Be that as it may, it would appear from the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India arising out of an order dated 12.12.14 in CRM

No. 2 of 2014 passed by the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta that the bail privilege granted to the respondent/ accused/ opposite party no. 2 was

cancelled and was directed to surrender before the Trial Court. It is submitted by Mr. Bhattacharjee that the accused pursuant to the direction of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is in correctional home and since he is in correctional home it is expedient on the part of the learned Trial Judge

to see to it that trial is expedited by day to day taking of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses but appears to have been deferred on behalf of the

defence.

It is pointed out that the accused is taking such steps to delay the trial only for the reason that if he is behind the bar for a substantial period and the

trial is not concluded, then he may have scope to be enlarged on bail on that ground. But such plea may not materialise on behalf of the accused

because pursuant to the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court upon cancellation of the bail privilege granted to the accused/opposite party he

has been put behind the bar for facing custodial trial. It is reflected from the order dated 03.08.2016 passed in CRR No. 2220 of 2016 that the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, City Sessions Court, Calcutta was directed to consider the issue of deferring the cross-

examination of five prosecution witness by invoking the provision of section 231(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure afresh after giving opportunity

of hearing to both the parties to proceed with the hearing of the case for expeditious disposal as directed by this Court's order passed on 09.03.2016 in

CRR No. 833 of 2016.

Order dated 05.12.2016 passed in CRR N. 3406 of 2016 further reflects that witness nos. 1 and 2 have already been examined as PW-1 and 2 and

this court directed the learned Trial Court to examine CS Witness No. 3 as PW 3 upon conclusion of the examination-in-chief and to allow the

defence to cross-examine the aforesaid witness on one day and if such cross-examination is not completed on such day due to circumstances beyond

the control of the parties positively within a fortnight from such date and thereafter recording of evidence of the other prosecution witness were

directed to be proceeded in accordance with law. Accordingly the direction by another co-ordinate Bench was to ensure that recording of the

evidence is not done following the mandate of section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with further direction to conclude the trial as

expeditiously as possible preferably within a year from the date of communication of the order without granting any unnecessary adjournment to the

either of the parties.

It is submitted by Mr. Bhattacharjee that at present the evidence of five witnesses have been concluded and evidence of PW-6 is on the verge of

conclusion out of 26 witnesses. It appears that the learned Trial Court has not been able to comply with the direction of the Hon’ble High

Court’s order passed earlier.

Therefore, the learned Registrar (Administration), High Court, Calcutta is directed to obtain an explanation from the learned Trial Court as to the

status of the case. List the matter on May 15, 2018 for necessary order in presence of both the parties. Urgent xerox certified copies of this order, if

applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.