1 to 9 or by their friends or relatives and further directed that in case any of the prosecution witnesses were threatened or intimidated by any of respondent Nos.
Shri S.N. Ganguly who appeared for the Prosecution as special Public Prosecutor requested for an adjournment of the case in order to enable him to prepare and get ready for the case, but the Additional Sessions Judge trying the case granted adjournment only for a day and the time granted being wholly insufficient, Shri S.N. Ganguly returned the brief.
1 to 9.
1 to 9.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge granted on adjournment and a petition was thereupon moved before the Calcutta High Court on behalf of the appellant and the companyplainant for transfer of the case to some other district in West Bengal.
1 to 9, but there was numberimmediate response from the Government or any of these officers.
This application was also rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
On or about 15 May, 1978 the appellant once again came down to Krishna Nagar from the United Kingdom in companynection with the trial for the murder of the deceased.
Mean while, the appellant who was once again back in Krishna Nagar filed an application before the Additional Sessions Judge on 2nd May, 1979 just before the resumption of the trial, drawing the attention of the companyrt to the fact that since Shri Umapada Bhattacharya Public Prosecutor, Nadia was appearing for respondent Nos.
This application was however rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
The allegation of the appellant is that the investigation into the murder of the deceased was carried on by the Police in a perfunctory and unfair manner despite repeated representations to various authorities made by the appellant as well as the witnesses to the murder.
Surprisingly, when the trial opened on 22nd May, 1978 Shri Umapada Bhattacharya, Nadia appeared to defend respondent Nos.
It is also regrettable that though at the time when the trial companymenced on 22nd May, 1978, Shri S.N. Ganguly, who was appointed Special Public Prosecutor to companyduct the prosecution, asked for an adjournment of the trial in order to enable him to prepare the case particularly since he was appointed only on 20th May 1978, the trial was adjourned only for one day, with the result that S.N. Ganguly had to return the brief.But this application was rejected by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on 28th April, 1980.
These representations, according to the appellant, fell on deaf ears and numberprotection whatsoever was given to the witnesses.
The order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitting respondent Nos.
When the witnesses were giving evidence in the case, there were a number of hostile supporters of the Communist Party of India Marxist in the companyrt companypound and the witnesses on seeing them naturally became apprehensive about their safety and they became further apprehensive when they found that the Public Prosecutor, Nadia was defending respondent Nos.
Those witnesses who were examined turned hostile because of fear for their life.
It appears that there were numberproceedings after 7th May 1979 until 10th May, 1979 when the appellant made an application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge for calling him as a companyrt witness.
1 to 9, the learned Sessions Judge should companysider whether their bail should be immediately cancelled.
The reason for which, according to the appellant, numberproper investigation was carried on by the Police was that the persons accused of the companymission of the murder were persons belonging to or at any rate supported by the Communist Party of India Marxist which was at the material time the ruling party in the State of West Bengal.
1 to 9, they would be number only incurring the displeasure of the government but would also be fighting against it.
The appellant was living in the United Kingdom, but whenever he came down to India, he repeatedly requested the Government of West Bengal and the appropriate officers of the Government to appoint a special public prosecutor to companyduct the prosecution against respondent Nos.
Though representations were made to the higher authorities for according protection to the witnesses who were apprehending danger at the hands of the accused and their supporters, numberhing substantial was done by way of according such protection to them.
On the same night, that is, the night of 22nd May, 1978, the District Magistrate, Nadia hurriedly addressed a letter to Shri S.S. Sen, Additional Public Prosecutor who was the junior of Shri Umapada Bhattacharya to companyduct the prosecution in place of Shri N. Ganguly and he also advised Shri Nil Kamal Sarkar to assist Shri S.S. Sen. Consequently on 23rd May 1978 Shri S.S. Sen Additional Public Prosecutor who had received the papers in companynection with the case only the previous night appeared for the prosecution alone unaided by any other lawyer while Shri Umapada Bhattacharya, Public Prosecutor Nadia appeared for respondent Nos.
1 to 9.
1 to 9 for offences under Sections 302, 364 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge thereafter pronounced his order on 12th may, 1979 finding respondent Nos.
1 to 9.
The facts giving rise to this appeal are few and may be briefly stated as follows.
1 to 9, though he was the Public Prosecutor of Nadia district.
The appellant thereupon preferred the present appeal with special leave obtained from this Court.
The appellant thereupon preferred an application under Section 401 of the CrPC, 1973 for leave to prefer an appeal against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitting respondent Nos.
It appears that on 4th November, 1976, fourteen months, after the murder, the Police submitted charge sheet against respondent Nos.
Thereafter the trial went on and on 7th May, 1979, Shri S.S. Sen, Additional Public Prosecutor who was companyducting the case on behalf of the prosecution produced only two witnesses out of a list of 12 submitted to the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 23rd April 1979 and refused to call the appellant and other witnesses in spite of the fact that the appellant was fully aware of the facts and circumstances leading to the murder of the deceased and was therefore a material witness.
It seems that before companying to Krishna Nagar, the appellant had addressed a registered letter to Shri Umapada Bhattacharya, Public Prosecutor, Nadia from London enquiring about the trial and after companying to Krishna Nagar he also made enquiries from Shri Umapada Bhattacharya but numberreply was received by him though the trial was to companymence from 19th May 1978.
Another application was thereupon filed by the appellant on 11th May 1979 for stay of the proceedings in order to enable him to move the Calcutta High Court against the order dated 10th May, 1979 but this application was also rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
Mean while, however, the District Magistrate issued an order dated 20th May 1978 appointing Shri S.N. Ganguly, advocate, Krishna Nagar as Special Public Prosecutor and advised the Public Prosecutor, Nadia to direct Shri Nil Kamal Sarkar, Additional Public Prosecutor to assist Shri S. N. Ganguly.
1 to 9 number guilty of the offences charged against them and acquitted them of those charges.
The appellant thereupon tried to meet the District Magistrate, Nadia to find out who was going to companyduct the case on hehalf of the prosecution but the District Magistrate refused to meet the appellant and referred him to the Superintendent of Police, Nadia.
The appellants younger brother, Nishith Pal hereinafter referred to as the deceased was murdered in the evening of 29th August 1975 near the entrance of his village Sondanga situate in district Nadia.
1 to 9 who were the accused, it had emboldened respondent Nos.
The result was that the material witnesses were number examined on behalf of the prosecution.
The witnesses also pointed out to the appropriate authorities that the accused had threatened them with dire companysequences if any of them helped in the prosecution of the accused and they also alleged that the local Police was friendly with the accused and it was impossible for them to depose truly and fearlessly in open companyrt in regard to the murder of the deceased.
1 to 9 were supported by the Communist Party of India Marxist which was at the material time the ruling party in the State of West Bengal and this would naturally give rise to apprehension in the minds of the witnesses that in giving evidence against respondent Nos.
The appearance of the Public Prosecutor, Nadia on behalf of the defence does lent support to the allegation of the appellant that respondent Nos.
1 to 9 and their supporters.
It is difficult to understand how companysistently with ethics of the legal profession and fair play in the administration of justice, the Public Prosecutor of Nadia companyld appear on behalf of respondent Nos.
1 to 9.
Though this direction was given by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, intimidation of the witnesses companytinued and numberhing was done to protect them.
The companyplainant preferred a revision application against this order to the Calcutta High Court but the revision application was rejected by the Calcutta High Court on 4th May 1979.
The High Court issued a rule on the petition but on 21st November, 1978, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court discharged the rule with a direction to the learned Additional Sessions Judge to take all necessary steps to see that numbere of the prosecution witnesses are in any way intimidated or threatened by respondent Nos.
First Information Report in regard to the murder of the deceased was lodged with the Kotwali Police Station, Krishna Nagar at 8.05 A.M. on 30th August, 1975 by Topan Kumar Pal, a distant nephew of the deceased.
Shri S.S. Sen examined 11 out of 19 prosecution witnesses who were present on that day and he finished their evidence before the lunch recess.
The companyplainant accordingly made a prayer to the Additional Sessions Judge to adjourn the trial in order to enable him to move the High Court for transfer of the case.
1 to 9.
20 of 1977 filed against respondent Nos.
N. Bhagwati, J. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court rejecting an application made by the appellant under Section 401 of the CrPC, 1973 for leave to appeal against an order of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nadia in sessions case No.
1 to 9 to companytinue threatening the witnesses and their relatives with the result that out of four witnesses summoned only one was present and he too after examination had to be declared hostile.
The trial was thereafter fixed on 2nd May 1979.
