Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 28 To September 3, 2023

NOMINAL INDEXRakesh Sha vs The State of West Bengal 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 240Avinaba Dutta & Another v State of West Bengal & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 241Satyendranath Halder And Ors Vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 242Suvendu Adhikari v State of West Bengal 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 243Apurba Biswas & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 244Sri Ravi Kumar v Union of India & Others 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 245Payel Paul Adhikary v Union Of India And Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 246Debabrata Chakraborti @ Debabrata Chakraborty Vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 247Suvendu Adhikari v State of West Bengal & ors 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 248Abdul Rakib v The State of West Bengal 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 249Ashadullah Biswas @ Asadulla Biswas v The Union of India & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 250Shri Jagannath Goswami & Ors. Vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 251Park Hospitals and another Vs. The West Bengal Clinical Establishment Regulatory Commission and another 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 252Thaddeus Lakra And Others Vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 253X v State of West Bengal 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 254Ranjan Das v The State of West Bengal & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 255Asgar Ali Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 256M/S Hytone Merchants Pvt Ltd V Prasenjit Das And Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 257Radha Bhattad v Rashmi Cement Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 2581. NDPS Act | Lab Report ‘Most Vital’ Evidence, Cannot Be Filed Through Supplementary Chargesheet: Calcutta High CourtCase: Rakesh Sha vs The State of West BengalCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 240The Calcutta High Court’s Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri recently allowed the bail plea of an accused under the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (“NDPS”) upon taking note of various ‘procedural infirmities’ in the chargesheet.A division-bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Prasenjit Biswas held:A mere statement of filing of a supplementary charge-sheet upon obtaining the Examination Report does not conform to the statutory mandate under the proviso to section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act. The Chemical Examination Report becomes the most vital piece of evidence which is required to be made part of the charge-sheet.Court said filing of charge-sheet within 180 days without the Chemical Examination Report with simply a line that a supplementary charge-sheet will be filed in future with the Examination Report is beyond the contemplation of the proviso to section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act.2. Calcutta High Court Grants Relief To Transgender Rights Activist, Quashes Kidnapping Case Lodged By Transwoman's FamilyCase: Avinaba Dutta & Another v State of West Bengal & Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 241The Calcutta High Court’s Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri recently quashed criminal proceedings against a transgender rights activist & researcher, who had been accused of kidnapping by the family of a trans-woman, whom he helped escape from alleged mental and physical torture at her home.In quashing the FIRs against the petitioner, a single-bench of Justice Prasenjit Biswas opined:To prove the ingredients of section 365 IPC, it is essential that there should be abduction, if no abduction is there; the offence under section 365 is not made out. The victim/opposite party no.3 submitted that she left her house voluntarily and is presently residing at Bengaluru. There is neither any case of abduction nor kidnapping prevails with regard to the petitioners as the opposite party no.3 left home voluntarily by her own choice. So, I am of the opinion that the offence under section 365 of the Indian Penal Code does not attract in terms of the facts and circumstances of the case and the ingredients of the offence under section 365 of IPC can be said to be totally absent on the basis of allegation in the complaint.3. Don’t Create Communal Tension: Calcutta HC Refuses To Exercise Writ Jurisdiction Over Private Ownership Of Waterbody Worshipped By HindusCase: Satyendranath Halder And Ors Vs State Of West Bengal And Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 242The Calcutta High Court on Monday dismissed a PIL challenging the order of the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer (BL & LRO) allocating a portion of the Adiganga water body in the Sundarbans to the private respondents under the West Bengal Land Reform Act, 1955. (“WBLR”)Petitioners argued that the respondents were preventing Hindus in the area from offering their worship at the water body, even though the same was attached to a temple, and prayers were carried on since 1933.In dismissing the PIL with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order of allocation under provisions of the WBLR Act, a division-bench of CJ Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya held:“It was submitted by the respondents that they are not preventing any Hindus from performing religious rituals during temple festivals and other days. No further direction is required to be issued, except to observe that...

Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 28 To September 3, 2023

Srinjoy Das

Tags