Kolkata Court March 2009 Judgments

Smt. Sujata Das Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Partha Sakha Datta, J. 1. The scope and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. has once again been argued by the petitioner-wife who has been denied maintenance by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Diamond Harbour in Criminal Motion No. 44 of 2006 through the order dated 18th of May, 2006 reversing thereby the grant of maintenance made by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Diamond Harbour upon hearing the application being case no. M-83 of 2005 corresponding to T.R. No. 312 of 2005 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner argued through her learned Advocate that the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge impugned would reveal that the learned Judge was approaching in a manner as if he was trying an offence so as to find out if an offence has been adequately proved or not; and in fact the order passed in revision would reflect that the learned Judge did forget that he was not exercising appellate jur...

Tapas Karmakar Vs. State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Partha Sakha Datta, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II at Krishnagore dated 27th October 2006 passed in Sessions Trial No. 9(12)/05 corresponding to Sessions Case No. 25(11)/05 convicting the appellant under Section 376 of the IPC and sentencing him to suffer R.I for a period of 7 years with payment of fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to suffer R.I for a further period of 6 months subject to set off under Section 428 of the IPC.2. As it appears from the FIR which was lodged within a few hours of the alleged incident on 2nd September 2005 by the victim herself with the O.C, Nabadwip PS, at about 8.30 a.m. on 2nd September 2005 the appellant, uncle by distant relation of the victim took her to a room in a hotel on the plea that she was required to cleans the hotel room where on the previous night there was a party to celebrate birthday anniversary of the appellant's daughter, Tusi. As soon as she entered...

Murarilal Agarwalla Vs. the State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Partha Sakha Datta, J. 1. The application being no. CRR 352/91 under Section 482 of the Cr.p.c. was filed on 11th February 1991 by the petitioner, an accused in connection with Enforcement Branch Case No. GR Case No. 29/85 corresponding to Hirapur PS Case No. 3 dated 6th June 1985 under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 now pending before the learned Judge, Special Court (EC Act, Asansol) for quashing of the proceeding on the ground that the learned Judge was oblivious of the provision of Section 167(5)(iii) of the Cr.P.c. and allowed continuation of the proceedings beyond the statutory period of time. This is the sole ground agitated before this Court in support of the application. I have heard Mr. Swapan Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Avijit Auddy, learned Advocate appearing for the State of West Bengal. On 5th June 1985 and 6th June 1985 a raid was conducted in the godown of the petitioner who was a proprietor of M/s. Muralila...

Ranjit Majumder Vs. Bhupati Rajan Karmakar and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Partha Sakha Datta, J.1. This appeal is directed at the instance of the defacto complainant against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 6th May 2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. IV at Krishnagore, Nadia in SC No. 75(2)/05 corresponding to ST No. 15(5)/05. The five opposite parties herein were charged by the learned Judge in the court below under Section 498A/306/34 IPC. The petitioner/defacto complainant whose daughter was married to one Ram Karmakar (not the accused) sometime three years preceding the presentation of FIR was allegedly subjected to torture and assault on demand of money by the present opposite parties/accused persons who included father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law in the matrimonial home on demand of money. The husband of the victim would work at a different place and would came to his house from time to time. On 17.6.02 the defacto complainant's wife Smt. Charubala Mazumder had gone to the matr...

Anchal Kanti Sahoo and ors. Vs. Parimal Guria and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Prasenjit Mandal, J.1. These two applications are disposed of by this common judgment as they arose out of the same matter. By a composite order dated 05.03.2008, the learned Civil Judge disposed of both the two J. Misc Cases No. 35 of 2004 and 36 of 2004. The defendants/petitioners challenged the said composite order dated 05.03.2008.2. The J. Misc. Case No. 35 of 2004 was over an application under Order 22 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the other J. Misc. Case No. 36 of 2004 arose out of an application under Order 47 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. In J. Misc. Case No. 35 of 2004, the petitioners of that Misc. Case contended that the opposite party no.3 of the misc. case died on 07.08.2003 and a petition for substitution dated 06.11.2003 was filed which was rejected by that Court in J. Misc. Case No. 32 of 2002 on the ground that the said J. Misc. Case No. 32 of 2002 abated as a whole. So the prayer for substitution of legal heirs of the deceased opposite party no.3 along with an app...

Haladhar Nandi and Three ors. Vs. State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Partha Sakha Datta, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30th of May, 1987 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Midnapore in Sessions Trial Case No. V of July 1984 convicting the four appellants, namely Haladhar Nandi, Sukumar Laha, Astam Hembram and Bistu Duley under Section 395 of the IPC and sentencing each of them to suffer R.I for 4 years on the said charge.2. P.W. 3, Kalipada Pal lodged an ejahar at 08-20 hrs. on 23rd of March, 1982 alleging the following incident:On the night between 22nd of March, 1982 and 23rd March 1982 at about 01-00 a.m. when the members of the family had been sleeping in their respective rooms in the house there was heard sound of knocking of doors in the western side of the covered varandah of the complainant's two-storied building. When the complainant came out he found some people striking against the door from outside with the help of an axe. It was realized that a dacoity was being committed. His eld...

Anamika Mondal Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2010ACJ65

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of a claimant in a proceeding under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and is directed against an award dated 7.6.2006 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, District 24 Parganas (South) and Fast Track Court-Ill, Alipore in M.A.C. Case No. 171 of 2006 thereby disposing of the proceeding by awarding a sum of Rs. 3,50,000 as compensation for the injury caused to the appellant. The insurance company was directed to pay the said amount within two months with the stipulation that in default of such payment within the said period, the amount would carry simple interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the application (7.1.2003) till realization in full.2. Being dissatisfied, the claimant has come up with the present appeal.3. There is no dispute as regards the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident resulting in the injury to the claimant and the fact that due to fault on the...

Dr. Vijay Pahwa Vs. West Bengal Medical Council and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2009Cal209

ORDER1. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. It is not disputed before us that the appellant has already filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 841 of 2007 challenging the proceedings initiated against him by the West Bengal Medical Council. This writ petition is admittedly pending for final disposal. Thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 1275 of 2008, which was also dismissed by this Court with the following observations:5.1 Having considered the submission of the parties the Notice dated 3rd July, 2008 cannot be set aside for the following reasons:5.2 Rule 8(1) postulates an enquiry and investigation by the Penal Committee. The said Committee is a fact finding body and for the purpose of furnishing its report is entitled to take further evidence either documentary or by deposition. This fact finding body is neither quasi-judicial or judicial in nature. Its decision is also not a judicial decision. In fact, it makes an investigation and submits a report. Therefore, the ele...

Nirendra Kumar Saha and ors. Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and ors ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2009)IVLLJ816Cal

Biswanath Somadder, J.1. All the aforementioned writ petitions are taken up together since identical issues are involved and disposed of by this common judgment.2. These writ petitions have been filed by several petitioners, who were employees of the Durgapur Steel Plant/Alloys Steel Plant/Bokaro Steel Plant of the Steel Authority of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as SAIL), and who have since retired from service. The principal grievance of the writ petitioners emanates from the action of respondent authorities following two different methods in the matter of payment of gratuity to its employees.3. The petitioners have stated that the posts held by them before retirement were classified by the respondent authorities as 'executive' posts and they were given limited amount of gratuity, upto a maximum ceiling of Rupees one lakh upon their retirement. However, in case of other employees of SAIL, they were given gratuity without any ceiling for their entire period of service, classifyi...

Amal Alias Nirmal Dutta and anr. Vs. the State of West Bengal and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2009CriLJ4333

Girish Chandra Gupta, J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 3rd September, 1987 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kalna in Sessions Trial No. 4 of 1987 arising out of Sessions Case No. 325 of 1986 convicting the accused Amal alias Nirmal Dutta and Arun Basak for the' offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and an order passed on the same day sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight years as also to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- each in default of payment to undergo further imprisonment for a term of two years each. The amount of fine, if realised, was directed to be paid to the mother of the victim.2. The facts and circumstances of the case briefly stated are that Basanti fell in love with the accused Amal also known as Nirmal Dutta. She was given in marriage to the said Nirmal Dutta by her maternal uncle. A male child was born. Within five years of marriage she committed suicide by consuming poison. The allegation of t...