On 14/1/2002, the appellants preferred a revisional application before the learned Sessions Judge challenging Order dated 5/1/2002.
On 4/6/2000 upon investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the abovementioned accused persons.
It may be stated here that the said Order has number been challenged by the State or any of the parties.
The order dated 31/7/2000 passed by the learned Magistrate is set aside and the learned Magistrate is further directed to companymit the case immediately after proper companypliance of the provisions of law and soon reach the stage of section 208 of the said Code xxx xxx xxx xxx It would be also open to the Learned Sessions Judge, upon companymitment of the arrayed Accused Opposite Parties during the Trial to arraign the other accused who has been left out by the Learned Magistrate, if the situation so demands in exercise of his power under Section 319 of the said Code in accordance with the steps known to law without being guided by the disposal of this Application.
In this case, between 21/8/1997 to 6/6/2000, 12 witnesses were examined prior to the issue of process under Sections 200 and 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code the Code by learned SDJM.,
Magistrate has passed the order to issue W.A. against all named 5 accd.
But it appears from the impugned order dated 5.1.2002 Ld.
On 31/7/2000, learned SDJM, Kalyani found sufficient ground to proceed against SI Shankar Chatterjee, ASI Ajoy Roy and Kartick Sarkar under Sections 302 read with Section 120B or Section 304 read with Section 120B and Section 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
On the same day P.S. Kalyani registered Case No.50 of 1997 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 307 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code the IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act against unknown persons.
There was numberdirection as against appellant S.S. Banerjee.
On 17/5/1997, a companyplaint was filed by Smt.
By his Order dated 24/9/2004, learned Sessions Judge modified the Order of learned Magistrate dated 5/1/2002.
By the impugned order, the High Court set aside the order of the Sessions Court and restored the order of learned Magistrate dated 5/1/2002.
The Commission directed that displeasure of the Commission should be companymunicated, in writing, to the appellant S.K. Chanda, SDPO, Kalyani for having attempted to mislead the Commission by his Report which was number in alignment with facts.
Kalyani, Nadia.
Since over the same incident, there was a police case also against those three accused persons, learned Magistrate directed that Complaint Case No.138C of 1997 be tagged with Police Case No.78 of 2000 for further proceedings.
The facts which give rise to this judgment need to be shortly stated.
On 25/8/2000, the companyplainant filed a revisional application against the said Order dated 31/7/2000 passed by learned SDJM being C.R.R. No.2174 of 2000 in the Calcutta High Court.
On 22/5/2000, pursuant to the above recommendation of the Commission, P.S. Kalyani, registered Case No.78 of 2000 against SI Shankar Chatterjee, ASI Ajoy Roy and Kartick Sarkar under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 307 and 326 of the IPC read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.
persons including said S.K. Chanda and S.S. Banerjee who have been left out by order dated 31.7.2000 as observed by the Honble Court.
The companyplainant being aggrieved by Order dated 24/9/2004 passed by the Sessions Court filed a revisional application before the High Court against Order dated 24/9/2004 of learned Sessions Judge.
He was shot dead.
It appears that Association for Protection of Democratic Rights, Ranaghat Branch, made a companyplaint to the West Bengal Human Rights Commission alleging that some police officers had shot down Khagen Majhi.
Learned SDJM, however, refused to issue process against appellant S.K. Chanda and appellant S.S. Banerjee.
On 23/7/2001, the High Court set aside the Order of the learned Magistrate clubbing the companyplaint case with the police case and directed that the companyplaint case be companymitted to the Court of Sessions.
One Khagen Majhi was killed in the early hours of 30/4/1997.
The appellants were number party to this revisional application.
RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J. Both these appeals are directed against Judgment and Order dated 7/6/2005 passed by the Calcutta High Court in C.R.R. No.3140 of 2004 and, hence, they are being disposed of by this companymon order.
Damyanti Majhi, the mother of deceased Khagen Majhi against SI Sankar Chatterjee, ASI Ajay Roy, appellant S.K. Chanda, appellant S.S. Banerjee and one Kartik Sarkar under Sections 302, 201 and 120B read with Section 34 of the IPC which was registered as Case No.138C of 1997.
Learned Sessions Judge companysidered all the facts in proper perspective and numbered that learned Magistrate had by his earlier order dated 31/7/2000 refused to issue process against S.K. Chanda and S.S. Banerjee the appellants herein and had passed order of clubbing the companyplaint case with the police case.
This order was challenged by Smt.
The West Bengal Human Rights Commission by its Order dated 21/1/1998 recommended that prosecution should be started against SI Shankar Chatterjee and ASI Ajoy Roy.
