Calcutta High Court Weekly Round Up: January 31 To February 6, 2022

Judgments/Orders of the Week 1. 'He Has Suffered Mental Pain': Calcutta High Court Reduces Sentence For Conviction U/S 489B IPC In Appeal Pending Since 1986Case Title: Biswanath Das v. State Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 18The Calcutta High Court reduced the sentence awarded to a man charged under Section 489B and Section 489C of the IPC for forging currency notes after observing that he had undergone mental agony due to long pendency of criminal proceedings. The appellant had been convicted only on April 13, 1986 in criminal proceedings initiated against him on December 28, 1983. Thereafter, the instant appeal preferred by him has been pending since 1986. Justice Rabindranath Samanta noted that the appellant had already served out the sentence for one and half months and accordingly observed, "Owing to continuance of the appeal, the appellant/convict suffered worries, mental pains and agonies. As stated above, he has already served out the sentence for one and half months. Considering the long pendency of the criminal proceedings and the instant appeal and the mental pains suffered by the appellant/convict I feel that the sentence as imposed by the learned Trial Judge if reduced to the sentence already undergone by him would sub-serve the interest of justice." Accordingly, the Court reduced the sentence imposed to the period already served by the appellant which is only one and half months. "The conviction as recorded by the learned Trial Judge in the aforesaid Sessions trial case is confirmed. However, the sentence is reduced to only one and half months which the appellant has already served out", the Court directed further.2. 'Vague Reference To Previous Medical Treatment' : Calcutta HC Dismisses Plea Of Legal Insanity, Upholds Life Sentence Of Man For Murdering His MotherCase Title: Md. Wasim v. The State of West BengalCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 19The Calcutta High Court has recently upheld the life sentence awarded to a man for murdering his mother by dismissing his plea of legal insanity. A Bench comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Kausik Chanda while dismissing the plea of legal insanity underscored, "I find it difficult to persuade myself that the appellant had discharged his onus to establish that he committed the crime while suffering from a bout of insanity. To fall within the general exception of legal insanity, it is incumbent on the part of the defence to establish that the accused was suffering from mental ailment of such degree at the time of commission of the offence that he was unaware of the consequences of his act. Appellant has singularly failed to discharge such onus. Vague reference to previous medical treatment by PW-6 without cogent materials like prescriptions or other medical evidence being placed on record to prove the nature and degree of mental impairment at the time of commission of the offence would not sustain the plea of legal insanity." During the proceedings, it was argued that the appellant was suffering from mental imbalance and hence ought to be acquitted. However, the Court dismissed such a contention by stating that the record only shows that he had received some treatment for mental problems, however no witness evidence had divulged that the appellant was violent due to any mental disorder. Accordingly, the Court observed further, "I find little force in such submission. PW-6 merely stated that the appellant was a simple person and had previously received some treatment for mental problems. He, however, denied that the appellant was violent due to mental disorder. On the contrary, ample evidence has come on record that the appellant was leading a healthy and normal life. He was carrying on business in perfume on his own."3. Summons U/S 204 CrPC Can't Be Issued To Accused Residing Outside Magistrate's Jurisdiction Without Holding Inquiry U/S 202 CrPC: Calcutta HCCase Title: Divyajot Singh Jendu v. Manikaran Analytics LimitedCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 20The Calcutta High Court on Monday held that before issuing summons to an accused under Section 204 of the CrPC, a Magistrate has to mandatorily hold an inquiry under Section 202 of the CrPC. Justice Ananda Kumar Mukherjee held that the scope of such enquiry under section 202 CrPC is limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: (i) on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; (ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and (iii) for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defense that the accused may have. The Court therefore set aside an order of the concerned Magistrate issuing summons to the accused (residing outside its jurisdictional limits) after observing that the Magistrate had merely conducted an inquiry under Section 200 of the CrPC and not under Section 202 of the CrPC. "In the case under considering the learned ...

Calcutta High Court Weekly Round Up: January 31 To February 6, 2022

Aaratrika Bhaumik

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Calcutta High Court Weekly Round Up: January 31 To February 6, 2022

Aaratrika Bhaumik

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers