Buddhadeb Chandra and ors. Vs. the State of West Bengal

.....dated 15.03.2003.[para 42] d) whether rule 35 of the mc rules justify the recommendation of the state government in favour of the respondents-jindal and kalyani -- as discussed above, rule 35 only permits the state government to take additional factor of the "end use" of the minerals and not the existing investments made by the applicants. moreover, relying on the existing investments made, the respondents also does not satisfy the requirements under section 11(3)(d) which talks solely about proposed investments to be made and not the existing ones.[para 44] e) whether the criterion of "captive consumption" referred to in tata iron and steel co. ltd. vs. union of india, (1996) 9 scc 709, have any application in this case despite not being one of the factors referred to in section 11 (3) of the mmdr act or rule 35 of the mc rules -- we have already held that section 11(3) specifies the matter relevant for purposes of second proviso to section 11(2). we also referred to the committee's report. in accordance with the recommendation in the said report, section 11(3)(d) was added as part of the substitution of section 11 in the year 1999. sub-section (d) provides that "the investment which the applicant proposes to make in the mines and in the industry based on minerals" and it speaks about investment proposed to be made and not past investments. thus it confines the concept of "captive consumption of minerals to proposed investment and not past investments". even the residuary clauses in section 11(3)(e) are limited to "matters as may be prescribed", which would necessarily mean matters prescribed by rules. this is fortified by decision of this court in bsnl ltd. & anr. vs. bpl mobile cellular ltd. & ors., (2008) 13 scc 597, para 45.[para 35] f) whether factors such as the past commitments by the state government to applicants who have already set up steel plants, matter for consideration for grant of lease despite the mmdr act and the mc rules constituting a.....ashim kumar roy, j.1. heard mr. abhijit kumar adhya, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as mr. joy sengupta, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the state. perused the impugned order and other materials on record.2. the subject matter of challenge in the instant criminal revision is an order whereby the trial court rejected the petitioners' prayer for re-examination on recall of five prosecution witnesses, viz., p.w. 1, p.w. 2, p.w. 5, p.w. 8 and p.w. 14. it appears from the materials on record that the petitioners have been facing their trial for offence punishable under sections 498a/306/34 of the indian penal code and after the 313 examination of the accuseds was over, the application under section 311 of the code of the criminal procedure was moved for recalling of those witnesses for their re-examination to suggest that the victim, mousumi, committed suicide as she was unable to conceive. it further appears that those witnesses were examined at length. the defence got sufficient opportunities to cross-examine them, but nothing was suggested to those witnesses that she committed suicide being unable to conceive. this is a case where there has been a change of lawyer and the new lawyer after taking over of the charge of the case, moved this application for putting this suggestion to those witnesses.now, having regards to the materials on record, i am of the opinion that the examination of the said witnesses is not at all necessary for just decision of the case. accordingly, it cannot be said that the order impugned suffers from any illegality or any infirmity.this criminal revision has no merit and accordingly stands dismissed.criminal section is directed to deliver urgent photostat certified copy of this judgement to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.