Calcutta High Court upholds legality of trial proceedings; dismisses Revision due to advance trial stage and absence of prejudice

Calcutta High Court: In a revision petition challenging the transfer of the trial from the Sessions Judge to the Additional Sessions Judge, a single-judge bench comprising of Suvra Ghosh,* J., dismissed the revisional application in absence of prejudice to the petitioners and the trial being near to completion. The Court highlighted that the initial orders of remand by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), though irregular, did not strike at the root of the case since cognizance was later taken by the Court of Sessions.

Factual Matrix

In the instant matter, a written complaint was filed against the petitioners, leading to Binpur Police Station case no.12, dated 15-02-2010. The CID, West Bengal, conducted the investigation, resulting in arrests and subsequent remands by the ACJM, Jhargram. The Investigating Officer sought the addition of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act sections, which was granted after proper sanction. The case was committed to the Sessions Judge and later transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge for trial.

The petitioners challenged the orders of the Additional Sessions Judge, dated 09-08-2023, 17-08-2023, and 28-08-2023, pertaining to sessions trial under Sections 121/121-A/122/124-A/302 of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Sections 16(1)(a)/16(1)(b)/18/38/39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act, and Section 25(I)(b) of the Arms Act. The petitioners contended that the ACJM lacked authority to handle the matter, and the case should have been brought before a Special Court or the Court of Sessions with the jurisdiction of a Special Court.

Moot Point

1. Whether the transfer of the case from the Sessions Judge to the Additional Sessions Judge was without jurisdiction?

2. Whether the orders of remand by the ACJM, after taking cognizance under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, irregularities affecting the ongoing trial?

Parties’ Contentions

The petitioners argued that the Special Court or the Court of Sessions should have dealt with the matter, and the transfer to the Additional Sessions Judge was unauthorized. The petitioners contended that remands made by the ACJM were irregular, impacting the ongoing trial. The State argued that the Court of Sessions, including the Additional Sessions Judge, had the competence to try cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The State argued that the legality of the investigation was not challenged by the accused, and the remand orders, though irregular, did not vitiate the ongoing trial.

Court’s Assessment

The Court considered the jurisdictional issue and referred to Article 236(a) of the Constitution of India and Section 9(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC to establish that a Sessions Judge includes an Additional Sessions Judge. The Court noted that the absence of a designated Special Court in the district under Section 22(1) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (NIA Act) was addressed by Section 22(3), allowing the Sessions Court to exercise jurisdiction in such cases. The Court held that the transfer to the Additional Sessions Judge was within the authority of the Sessions Judge as per the NIA Act and CrPC.

The Court acknowledged the irregularities in the orders of remand by the ACJM but concluded that they did not vitiate the ongoing trial. The Court emphasised that the petitioners did not claim prejudice or miscarriage of justice due to these orders. The Court invoked Section 465 of the CrPC, emphasizing that irregularities do not warrant reversal or alteration of findings unless a failure of justice is proven. The Court highlighted that the focus should be on whether a failure of justice occurred, and in this case, it did not.

Court’s Decision

The Court, in absence of prejudice to the petitioners and the trial being near to its completion, dismissed the revisional application. The Court found the petition devoid of merit and granted the petitioners the liberty to raise the jurisdiction issue during the final hearing in the trial court. No costs were awarded.

[Sukhlal Soren v. State of W.B., 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 638, order dated 24-01-2024]

*Judgment by Justice Suvra Ghosh

Advocates who appeared in this case :

Mr.Kaushik Gupta and Ms. Srimoyee Mukherjee, Counsel for the Petitioners

Mr. Neguive Ahmed and Ms. Amita Gaur, Counsel for the Respondent/State

Buy Constitution of India  HERE

Buy Penal Code, 1860   HERE

Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  HERE