Calcutta High Court Weekly Round Up: May 30 To June 5, 2022

Nominal Index [2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 216 To 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 224]Sri Anish Loharuka v. The State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 216Hafija Laskar v. The State of West Bengal and others 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 217Susmita Saha Dutta v. Avishek Bandyopadhyay 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 218Yes Bank Limited v. Malati Saha 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 219Sulogna Chowdhury v. State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 220Pranesh Kumar Kar v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 221Abhishek Banerjee & Anr v. The Union of India & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 222Abhishek Banerjee & Anr v. The Union of India & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 222 In Re: Satyadeo Prasad Shaw 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 224Orders/Judgments 1. S.207 CrPC | Can't Supply Documents To Accused If There Is Risk Of Disclosure Of Minor Victim's Identity, Can Only Permit Inspection: Calcutta HCCase Title: Sri Anish Loharuka v. The State of West BengalCase Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 216The Calcutta High Court while enumerating upon the scope of Section 207 of the CrPC which allows documents relied upon by the prosecution to be supplied to an accused, underscored that when there is a possibility of disclosure of identity of a minor victim of sexual offences then instead of supplying it would be expedient to allow the accused or his lawyer to inspect the said documents. Justice Jay Sengupta observed, "..it is abundantly clear that when there is a possibility of disclosure of identity of a minor victim, albeit minor at the time of commission of offence then instead of supplying, copying such documents to the accused, it would be expedient to allow the accused or his lawyer to inspect the said documents. After all, once a document is supplied to the accused, there is no means to ensure that the identity of the victim would not be disclosed by misusing of such document. However, it has also been provided that the accused would have a right to have such a document inspected by an expert of Information Technology."2. Allegations Of Custodial Torture Levelled By An Undertrial Not Ground To Assume Similar Treatment Meted Out To Related Accused: Calcutta High CourtCase Title: Hafija Laskar v. The State of West Bengal and othersCase Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 217The Calcutta High Court refused to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus at the instance of the petitioner by opining that the allegation of custodial torture against another accused in a different case cannot ipso facto raise presumption in the mind of the Court that custodial torture is being meted out to the petitioner as well. A Bench comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee opined that there is no material on record to support the apprehension of custodial torture being meted out to the petitioner and accordingly held, "..we do not find from the materials on record any scope of presumption or apprehension of custodial torture against the petitioner. In fact, the mere incident of alleged custodial torture against another person who has been in custody, being the accused in a different case (a near relative of the petitioner, namely Md. Ali @ Subrata Byne), cannot ipso facto raise presumption in the mind of the court regarding the custodial torture of the petitioner as well." The Bench further observed that since there is specific allegation of the petitioner having fled from police custody, it would not be prudent to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, which is a prerogative writ, at the instance of the petitioner.3. 'Extreme Measure': Calcutta High Court Refuses Contempt Action Against TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee For Alleged Derogatory Remarks Against JudiciaryCase Title: Susmita Saha Dutta v. Avishek BandyopadhyayCase Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 218The Calcutta High Court dismissed a petition seeking initiation of suo motu contempt proceedings against Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Abhishek Banerjee for his purported derogatory remarks against the judiciary by opining that the remarks do not tantamount to a contumacious act justifying issuance of a suo motu rule of contempt. A Bench comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee refused to initiate contempt proceedings against Banerjee by observing, "In the present case, undoubtedly the comments uttered by the person in question may not be palatable to the general public and/or the members of the Judiciary, however, such nature of the act need not have the effect tantamounting to a contumacious act, justifying issuance of a suo motu rule of contempt." It was also opined that the criteria stipulated in Section 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is not applicable in the instant case since the alleged contempt is not of such a nature that it substantially interferes, or tends substantially to interfere with the due course of justice.4. Intra-Court Appeal Under Clause 15 Of Letters Patent Appeal Not Maintainable Against Orders In Exercise Of Criminal Jurisdiction: Calcutta HCCase Title: Yes Bank Limited v. Malati SahaCase ...

Calcutta High Court Weekly Round Up: May 30 To June 5, 2022

Aaratrika Bhaumik

Tags