Advocate Pranab Sarkar in North Bidhan Nagar P. S. Case No. 128/09, G.R. No. 617/09.
Anonymous User at 2:53 p.m. on 30 April 11
Advocate Pranab Sarkar with senior Advocate Biplab Biswas appeared before the Court of Ld. A.C.J.M. On 30.4.11 and filed petition and prayed for discharge of Dr. Basudeb Banerjee, Smt. Nandita Banerjee, Chandreyee Banerjee and Atreyee Banerjee and mentioned in the clause no.3 of the said petition that Police submitted charge-sheet U/S. 120B/420/323/419/506/427/504/495/34 of I.P.C. Which is very much mis-conceived because the necessary mandatory ingrediants to invoke the sections are misarably absent within the four corners of the Case Record. Ld. Court was pleased to admit the petition and fixed on 21st May 2011 for further hearing.
North Bidhannagar P.S. Case No. 128/09. ( GR. 617/09 )
Anonymous User at 3:24 p.m. on 21 May 11
Ld. Court the matter and fixed on 4.6.11 for further hearing.
Anonymous User at 1:36 p.m. on 04 June 11
Ld. Court heard the matter. Public Prosecutor appeared on behalf of the State. Ld. Court fixed on 17th June 2011 for order.
Anonymous User at 2:27 p.m. on 17 June 11
Ld. Court fixed on 4.7.11 for order.
Ld. A.C.J.M., Bidhan Nagar Court. G.R. 617/09. State -vs- Dr. Basudeb Banerjee & ors.
Anonymous User at 5:03 p.m. on 04 July 11
Public Prosecutor appeared on behalf of the State and Mr. Biplab Biswas, Mr. Pranab Sarkar appeared on behalf of Dr. Basudeb Banerjee & ors. Ld. Court heard the matter from both sides and again fixed on 25.07.2011 for order.
Anonymous User at 11:24 p.m. on 25 July 11
Ld. A.C.J .M, heard the matter and expressed his view to pass necessary order today.
North Bidhan Nagar P. S. Case No. 128/09, G.R. No. 617/09. State -VS- Chandreyi Banerjee and ors.
Anonymous User at 12:24 p.m. on 28 July 11
Ld.Senior Advocate Mr. Biplab Biswas with Advocate Mr. Pranab Sarkar appeared on behalf of Chandreyi Banerjee, Basudeb Banerjee,Nandita Banerjee,and Atreyee Banerjee On 25.07.2011. Ld. A.C.J.M. Bidhannagar Court, Dist. North 24 Parganas, (West Bengal) passed the necessary order as follows (in brief):-
“ out of 11 accused persons the accused Chandreyi Banerjee and Basudeb Banerjee are present and the rest are absent by petition and are represented by their Ld. Advocate U/S. 317 Cr.P.C. In this case C.S. was submitted against the accused persons U/S. 420/323/419/506/427/504/495/120B I.P.C. At the time of framing charge, the accused persons by filing petitions prayed for discharging them from the case. The matter was heard in length from the Ld. Advocates for the accused persons and the Ld. A.P.P……..
According to the submission of the Ld. Advocates for the accused persons, the charges as were brought by the I.O. have no legs to stand.
SECTION 420 I.P.C. ………on careful perusal of the FIR as well as the materials available in C.D.I did not find any support behind the version and as such the said charge actually can not stand.
SECTION 419 I.P.C ………the instant case does not say anything which can attract these basic ingredients. I did not find any single material relying upon which I can say that prima-
Facie a case U/S. 419 I.P.C. made out.
SECTION 323 I.P.C ……….I am not at all inclined to entangle all the accused persons with such an allegation of Complainant which some how attracts the ingredients of section 323 I.P.C.
SECTION 495 I.P.C ……….on careful scrutiny of the case diary , I also did not find anything which can attracts the basic ingredients of section 495 I.P.C. These are the main offences which were labeled against the accused person. On careful perusal of the materials on record as well as the materials available in the Case Diary, I did not find any iota of prima-facie evidences which can lead me to hold that the prosecution could prima-facie establish the charges. It is the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court as reported in 2005(1) Crimes 1 (S.C.) that the trial Court is required to consider whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused and to consider the same the materials prosecution is to be considered.
……………the FIR itself as well as the other materials in record does not reflect anything for which Charge can be framed against the accused persons………………
Under the circumstances, I think that it is a fit case for discharging the accused persons.
Hence it is :-
That there is no ground to frame charge against the accused persons and as such all the accused persons of this case are discharged U/S. 239 Cr.P.C. and are discharged from bail bond.
Anonymous User at 1:16 p.m. on 15 Jan. 13
アバクロ ダウン レディース:http://www.afinjapan.com/category-528-b0.html
アバクロ ダウン レディース:www.afinjapan.com/category-528-b0.html
Anonymous User at 1:16 p.m. on 15 Jan. 13
アバクロ メンズロング パンツ:www.afinjapan.com/category-495-b0.html
Post in this thread