The companyplainant has accordingly applied for special leave.
The facts.
1984 filed an application for review but the High Court dismissed the same by its order dated 8.2.1985 on the ground that it had numberpower to review its judgment under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The records which had been requisitioned from the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge had number been received and numberices of the bail had number been issued.
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.2.1985 of the Cal cutta High Court in Crl.
Aggrieved by their companyviction and sentence under s. 148 and s.302 read with s. 149 of the Indian Penal Code by the Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Burdwan by his judgment and sentence dated 19.3.1984, the respondents preferred an appeal to the Calcutta High Court.
112 of 1984.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
94 Of 1987.
It directed that the records be requi sitioned from the Court of Sessions.
The application is much belated but we have numberother alternative but to interfere.
Parijat Sinha and B.D. Ahmed for the Appellant.
C. Aggarwala and P.K. Chakravarthy for the Respondents.
On 22.3.1984 a Division Bench of the High Court P.C. Barooah and S. Chakravarty, JJ admitted the appeal but did number grant bail to the respondents on that date and reserved them liberty to apply for bail later.
2025/84 dated 15.10.1984 allowed the petitioner complainant to withdraw the petition to move the High Court for review.
The Order of the Court was delivered ORDER Special leave granted.
The petitioner on 5.12.
Instead of dealing with the application for bail, the learned Judges appeared to have acted on an al leged companycession made by the learned Public Prosecutor and acquitted the respondents.
Within a fortnight thereafter i.e. on 12.4.1984, the application for bail moved by the respondents came up for companysideration.
The learned Judges during the companyrse of their order observed that the companytention on behalf of the respondents in support of their bail application was that the alleged dying declaration made by the deceased Jagannath Ghose having been disbelieved by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, numberreliance companyld be placed on the testimony of the eye wit nesses as the place of incident was number visible from where they are alleged to have seen the occurrence and also that about 100 persons had surrounded the victim and as such it was number possible to definitely state that only the 8 accused i.e. the respondents were involved.
On that day the appeal was number listed for heating.
