Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

C.N. Dey Vs. the State

C.N. Dey vs The State

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Aug 01, 1988
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/883804

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kolkata High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

C.N. Dey

Respondent

The State

Legal References

Reported In
1989CriLJ467

Excerpt

- .....this revisional application is directed against the order dated 11-11-82 passed by the learned metropolitan magistrate, 15th court, calcutta acquitting the accused persons of the charges framed against them.2. the present petitioner who is the de facto complainant in respect of the case being aggrieved by the said order has preferred this revisional application.3. the learned magistrate on the basis of the complaint framed charges against the accused persons under sections 381/114/411 of the indian penal code. witnesses were producted before him and they were examined by the prosecution on the prayer of the accused opposite party the cross-examination of the witnesses were deferred on the subsequent dates, the witnesses did not appear and on that ground, the learned magistrate by the impugned order acquitted the accused persons by treating the prosecution case as closed and by expunging the evidence of witnesses given in examination-in-chief. 4. from the order itself it appears that no summons was issued on any of the witnesses whose evidence in examination-in-chief the learned magistrate was pleased to expunge. only a memo, said to have been issued by the learned additional public prosecutor for procuring attendance of the witnesses was produced and it is reported that witnesses were informed over telephone to attend. on the basis of such report, the learned magistrate was satisfied that the prosecution evidence should be treated as closed and that the same should be expunged to acquit the accused persons. to say the least it is a strange order. such order of acquittal can never be passed before exhausting all the processes to secure the attendance of all the witnesses which the learned magistrate failed to do, giving no cogent reason therefor.5. the impugned order is accordingly set aside. revisional application is allowed the rule is made absolute. the case is sent back to the learned magistrate for disposal of the case according to law in the light of the.....

Full Judgment

A.C. Sen Gupta, J.

1. This revisional application is directed against the order dated 11-11-82 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 15th Court, Calcutta acquitting the accused persons of the charges framed against them.

2. The present petitioner who is the de facto complainant in respect of the case being aggrieved by the said order has preferred this revisional application.

3. The learned Magistrate on the basis of the complaint framed charges against the accused persons under Sections 381/114/411 of the Indian Penal Code. Witnesses were producted before him and they were examined by the prosecution On the prayer of the accused opposite party the cross-examination of the witnesses were deferred On the subsequent dates, the witnesses did not appear and on that ground, the learned Magistrate by the impugned order acquitted the accused persons by treating the prosecution case as closed and by expunging the evidence of witnesses given in examination-in-chief.

4. From the order itself it appears that no summons was issued on any of the witnesses whose evidence in examination-in-chief the learned Magistrate was pleased to expunge. Only a memo, said to have been issued by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for procuring attendance of the witnesses was produced and it is reported that witnesses were informed over telephone to attend. On the basis of such report, the learned Magistrate was satisfied that the prosecution evidence should be treated as closed and that the same should be expunged to acquit the accused persons. To say the least it is a strange order. Such order of acquittal can never be passed before exhausting all the processes to secure the attendance of all the witnesses which the learned Magistrate failed to do, giving no cogent reason therefor.

5. The impugned order is accordingly set aside. Revisional application is allowed The Rule is made absolute. The case is sent back to the learned Magistrate for disposal of the case according to law in the light of the observation made above.

6. Let the records be sent forthwith to the Court below.

J.N. Hore, J.

7. I agree.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial