HABIBULLAH vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE

PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR

CRR 773 OF 2023

HABIBULLAH
-VS-
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee
Ms. Moumita Pandit
Ms. Ritushree Banerjee
Ms. Olivia Dutta
Mr. Supravo Dey

For the Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee
Ms. Ayesha Sultana
Mr. Suman Majumder

For the State : Mr. Gurudas Mitra
Mr. Utsav Dutta

Reserved on : 13.10.2026
Pronounced on : 12.11.2026

UDAY KUMAR, J.: –
1. The instant criminal revisional application under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "Cr.P.C.") has been
instituted by the petitioner, Habibullah, invoking the inherent
jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the entire criminal proceeding
arising out of Harwood Point Coastal P.S. Case No. 192 of 2022 dated
31.05.2022 under Sections 409 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code,

2
CRR 773 OF 2023

1860 (for short, "IPC"), corresponding to Special Case No. 13 of 2022,
th
currently pending before the 7 Court of the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Alipore.
2. The instant criminal proceedings were initiated upon a formal written
complaint lodged on May 31, 2022, by one Ganesh Halder, a resident of
village Shib Kalinagar and a local betel vine farmer within the Kakdwip
region of South 24 Parganas. The underlying substratum of the
prosecution case is that during the financial year 2012–2013, the State
Government of West Bengal through the Horticulture Department,
under the National Horticulture Mission (NHM), launched an
ameliorative agricultural infrastructure development scheme aimed at
empowering marginalized betel-vine cultivators by providing financial
assistance and subsidies ranging between ₹ 2,75,000 to ₹ 3,00,000 per
unit for erecting durable Shade Net Houses (Pan Baroj) spanning 500
square meters.
3. To operationalize the said welfare initiative on the ground level, a local
non-governmental organization bearing the nomenclature "Kamarhat
Rural Welfare Society," spearheaded by its President/Secretary Sri
Subhrangshu Kamar @ Babusona (who was concurrently a
government-aided school teacher and a co-accused), acted as an
intermediary coordinating between the agrarian populace and the
administrative machinery. Simultaneously, commercial execution of the
said development scheme and fabrication contracts were tied to
specialized engineering entities, namely M/s. Aerotech Engineering
Works and M/s. Nature Fresh Bio-Solution, proprietorship firms

3
CRR 773 OF 2023

managed by the petitioner Habibullah and his spouse, which were later
consolidated into “Aerotech Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd.” in 2014.
4. According to the de-facto complainant, Subhrangshu Kamar persuaded
local farmers to participate and following advice allegedly tendered by
the then Director of Horticulture, A.K. Gupta, directed beneficiaries to
hand over signed blank cheque books and passbooks to the NGO for
proper fund management. Despite public funds being processed across
an estimated 204 beneficiary projects quantified cumulatively by the
prosecution at approximately ₹ 5,61,00,000, the promised Pan Baroj
structures were allegedly not executed, leading to systemic financial
deception and the registration of the FIR under Sections 409 and 120B
IPC.
5. Following the registration of the FIR, the investigation was set in
motion, initially by S.I. Tridib Saha and subsequently entrusted to a
Special Investigation Team (SIT). During the probe, the Investigating
Officer inspected the place of occurrence, prepared sketch maps, and
recorded statements of agricultural supervisors, KVK scientists, and
local farmers under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Custodial interrogation
of Subhrangshu Kamar led to the seizure of sixteen beneficiary cheque
books containing signed blank cheques from the NGO office and the
accused's premises. The investigative net was subsequently cast toward
the petitioner Habibullah on the strength of commercial agreements
entered between Aerotech Engineering Works and Nature Fresh Bio-
Solution on 19.12.2012 to carry out manufacturing, fabrication and

4
CRR 773 OF 2023

installation of the Shade Net House in furtherance of the development
scheme.
6. Upon finding the petitioner non-responsive to statutory notices under
Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. regarding utilization certificates, the
Investigating Officer submitted Charge Sheet No. 362/22 dated
September 17, 2022, against both Subhrangshu Kamar and the
petitioner Habibullah under Sections 409 and 120B IPC, leading to the
registration of Special Case No. 13 of 2022. Confronted with the
criminal prosecution, the petitioner has approached this Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the proceeding.
7. Assailing the continuation of the criminal proceedings, Mr. Jayanta
Narayan Chatterjee, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner,
has earnestly contended that the cognizance taken by the prosecution
is ex-facie barred by limitation under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C., given
that the alleged transactions relating to the offences under Sections 409
and 120 B IPC pertain to the financial year 2012–2013, whereas the FIR
was registered much belatedly, a decade later in 2022. Building upon
this threshold legal bar, he augmented his submissions by
incorporating landmark judicial authority on limitation and criminal
intent, notably Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases &
Ors., [(2014) 2 SCC 62] contending that a delayed criminal machinery
cannot be permitted to bypass the statutory protective shield enacted
by the legislature against stale prosecutions under Chapter XXXVI of
the Cr.P.C.

5
CRR 773 OF 2023

8. Mr. Chatterjee urged that the petitioner's name is conspicuously absent
from the initial FIR, and that as an independent commercial contractor,
he executed the 204 shade net house projects strictly in pursuance of
formal commercial agreements and approved government specifications
(Annexure P-8). In support of his contention that civil contractual
disputes or delayed commercial execution cannot be artificially dressed
up in criminal attire simply to exert coercive pressure, he strongly relied
upon the binding ratio of Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. v. State of
Uttaranchal & Ors., [(2007) 12 SCC 1].
9. Mr. Chatterjee vehemently submitted that the foundational allegation of
total non-execution of the scheme stands thoroughly demolished by
contemporaneous official records (Annexure P-9), which demonstrate
that the work was rigorously inspected, verified, and certified as
successful by competent authorities, including the District Horticulture
Officer, Betel-vine Supervisors, and senior agricultural scientists from
the Ramakrishna Ashram Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK), Nimpith, prior to
the release of funds. To lend further weight to this contention, he cited
Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. , [(2013) 11 SCC 673]
and Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat & Ors., [(2008) 5 SCC 668],
emphasizing that vicarious or sweeping criminal liability cannot be
fastened upon a corporate vendor or commercial partner in the absence
of explicit, legally tenable material establishing a direct fraudulent
nexus.
10. Mr. Chatterjee further highlighted that the de facto complainant,
Ganesh Halder, was himself a direct beneficiary under the identical

6
CRR 773 OF 2023

scheme who successfully received his entitled financial disbursements
(Annexure P-10). Relying on Bureau of Indian Standards specifications
(IS 16008:2012, Annexure P-11) establishing that agro-textile shade
nets have an expected operational lifespan of roughly two years, it is
argued that inspecting a perishable agricultural installation a decade
later and drawing an adverse inference from its natural deterioration is
wholly untenable. In support of the contention that the core ingredient
of a dishonest intent ( mens rea ) right from the inception of the
transaction is completely missing, he relied on the ratio laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma & Ors. v.
State of Bihar & Anr., [(2000) 4 SCC 168].
11. Placing heavy reliance on the landmark rulings of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. [1992 Supp (1)
SCC 335], Binod Kumar & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr. [(2014) 10 SCC
663], the recent pronouncements in Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy & Anr. v.
Sudha Seetharam & Anr., [(2019) 16 SCC 739], Mr. Chatterjee
submitted that the essential ingredients of criminal breach of trust
under Section 409 IPC (which necessitates clear entrustment or
dominion over property in a fiduciary capacity) and criminal conspiracy
under Section 120B IPC are entirely absent against a bona fide
commercial entity.
12. He also relied on the three judges’ Bench decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy & Ors., [(1977) 2
SCC 699] for the contention that criminal proceedings must be quashed
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when there is a patent insufficiency of

7
CRR 773 OF 2023

evidence on record to secure a conviction. In support of his contention
that where no prima facie case is made out, the continuation of
proceedings constitutes an abuse of the process of court, he referred to
Mahmood Ali & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., [(2023) 15 SCC
488]. Referring to Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.,
[(2010) 7 SCC 667], he underscored the principle that if materials-on-
record are grossly insufficient to prove guilt and a trial would inevitably
end in an acquittal, the proceedings deserve to be quashed, as facing an
unmerited trial inflicts severe and irreparable social scars upon an
individual's reputation.
13. Finally, he cited Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Ors. v. Sambhaji Rao
Chandroji Rao Angre & Ors., [(1988) 1 SCC 692], reiterating that where
undisputed facts disclose at best a civil wrong and the essential
ingredients of a criminal offence are lacking, criminal proceedings
should not be permitted to continue.
14. Per contra , Mr. Gurudas Mitra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the State, and Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the de facto
complainant (Opposite Parties), vehemently opposed the prayer for
quashing, urging the dismissal of the revisional application at the
threshold. Rebutting the primary contention raised by the petitioner on
limitation, Mr. Mitra emphatically relied on Section 473 of the Cr.P.C.
and equally on the authoritative ratio laid down in State of Himachal
Pradesh v. Tara Dutt & Anr., [(2000) 1 SCC 230] that offences involving
economic depredation, public exchequer fraud, and criminal breach of
trust regarding massive public funds carry a prolonged gestation of

8
CRR 773 OF 2023

unearthing, thereby warranting statutory condonation or exclusion
where concealment and systemic collusion are writ large.
15. It was contended that public exchequer funds amounting to
approximately ₹ 5,61,00,000 across 204 beneficiary units were siphoned
off through a deeply entrenched, collusive nexus between Subhrangshu
Kamar and the petitioner. The learned advocate for the Opposite Parties
pointed out that the petitioner was not an isolated commercial vendor,
and that coercive collections of blank signed cheque books from
innocent farmers including the de facto complainant were funnelled
directly into bank accounts controlled by the petitioner's firms,
specifically Bank of Baroda Account No. 3868000000113 of Nature
Fresh Bio-Solution. Countering the reliance placed on departmental
inspection notes and KVK certifications, it is argued that these
purported clearance certificates are vitiated by fraud, collusion, and
administrative complicity, demanding a full-fledged trial rather than
premature evaluation under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In support of this
contention, they relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in CBI v. Arvind Khanna [(2019) 10 SCC 686].

16. Referring to the categorical statements of witnesses Sandip Das and
Chandan Mandal (at pages 337 and 323 of the case diary) recorded by
the investigating officers under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., alongside
contemporaneous seizure lists, Mr. Mitra submitted that prima facie
sufficient and clinching materials are available in the case diary to
substantiate the prosecution case. To fortify this contention, he cited
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh & Ors., [(2023) 18 SCC

9
CRR 773 OF 2023

399] and State of M.P. v. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Ors., [(2004) 1 SCC
691], emphasizing that at the stage of quashing, the High Court cannot
conduct a mini-trial or sift through evidence to evaluate its adequacy.
17. They further emphasized that the petitioner deliberately adopted an
uncooperative posture during the investigation by evading statutory
notices under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. and failing to produce lawful
utilization certificates. Relying on the well-settled parameters governing
the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as
enunciated in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. & Ors. v. Mohd.
Sharaful Haque & Anr., [(2005) 1 SCC 122] and Chunduru Siva Ram
Krishna & Anr. v. Peddi Ravindra Babu & Anr., [(2009) 11 SCC 203], the
learned advocates for the Opposite Parties concluded that disputed
questions of fact regarding the genuineness of execution, the validity of
inspection reports, the applicability of limitation under economic
offenses, and the existence of mens rea cannot be adjudicated at the
pre-trial stage and must be subjected to rigorous testing during trial.
18. Upon a comprehensive evaluation of the pleadings, case diary, and rival
submissions, the sole effective and core question that arises for
determination by this Court is:
“Whether the present case warrants the extraordinary exercise of
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure to quash the chargesheet and criminal proceedings at
the pre-trial stage, or whether the materials on record disclose
prima facie triable issues regarding criminal conspiracy, active
connivance, and misappropriation of public funds that necessitate
a full-fledged trial?”

10
CRR 773 OF 2023

19. I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the persuasive
arguments advanced by Mr. Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee, learned senior
counsel for the petitioner, as well as the robust resistance offered by
Mr. Gurudas Mitra for the State and Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee for the de
facto complainant. I have also meticulously perused the case diary, the
charge sheet, and the numerous judicial precedents cited across the
bar.

20. First of all, I think it necessary to consider on the legal parameters
governing the invocation of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. This provision
provides for the saving of inherent powers of High Court, which
expounds that “ nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the
inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be
necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse
of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. ”
21. The contours governing the exercise of inherent powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings are well-settled by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Bhajan Lal (supra) , wherein
the Hon’ble Apex Court delineated illustrative guidelines where
quashing is permissible. Relying upon Category (1) (where allegations
do not disclose an offence) and Category (7) (where proceedings are
manifestly mala fide or instituted with ulterior motives), the petitioner
sought quashing of the pending criminal proceedings initiated against
him.

11
CRR 773 OF 2023

22. Furthermore, the caution observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Binod Kumar (supra) regarding the abuse of criminal process in
commercial transactions is equally instructive:
"……..In the present case, looking at the allegations in the
complaint, we are satisfied that the allegations only make out a
civil dispute. ... Expressing this view, we are fortified by the
decision of this Court in Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd.
wherein it was held that a set of facts may give rise to civil
remedies and also to criminal proceedings, and only when the
civil remedy is a camouflage for criminal prosecution, the criminal
proceedings are liable to be set aside."
23. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in L. Muniswamy (supra) ,
that criminal proceedings must be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
when there is a patent insufficiency of evidence on record to secure a
conviction; in Mahmood Ali (supra) , held that where no prima facie case
is made out, the continuation of proceedings constitutes an abuse of
the process of court; and in Preeti Gupta (supra) , held that if materials
are grossly insufficient to prove guilt and a trial would inevitably result
in an acquittal, the proceedings deserve to be quashed, as facing an
unmerited trial inflicts severe and irreparable social scars upon an
individual's reputation.
24. But it is equally a settled position of law that the inherent power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection,
and in the rarest of rare cases, as articulated in the decisions of Aryan
Singh (supra) and Awadh Kishore Gupta (supra). A High Court, while
examining a petition for quashing a charge sheet, does not sit as a trial

12
CRR 773 OF 2023

court to evaluate the probative value of defence exhibits or conduct a
meticulous mini-trial.
25. Now I have taken the issue of bar of limitation in initiation of this
prosecution which has been raised by the petitioner. Let me first
consider the provision of Section 468 of the Cr.P.C, which is reproduced
hereinbelow: -
“ 468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period
of limitation.
(1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no
Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the
category specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of
the period of limitation.
(2) The period of limitation shall be—
(a) six months , if the offence is punishable with fine
only;
(b) one year , if the offence is punishable with
imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year;
(c) three years , if the offence is punishable with
imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but
not exceeding three years.
(3) For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation,
in relation to offences which may be tried together,
shall be determined with reference to the offence which

13
CRR 773 OF 2023

is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as
the case may be, the most severe punishment.
26. Admittedly, the FIR was instituted on May 31, 2022 for the acts of
financial transactions held in financial year 2012–2013. Apparently,
prosecution was initiated after three years , which is the maximum
period for taking cognizance of any offence, permitted under Section
468, otherwise the cognizance would be barred. In the given context,
Mr. Chatterjee has correctly raised the argument that a delayed
criminal machinery cannot bypass the statutory protective shield
enacted by the legislature against stale prosecutions under Chapter
XXXVI of the Cr.P.C. When I consider the issue of limitation in the light
of the law settled by the supreme court in Sarah Mathew (supra), I find
that the present offence involves the alleged siphoning of massive public
welfare subsidies running into crores of rupees earmarked for
marginalized farmers under the National Horticulture Mission.
27. At this juncture, consideration of the provision of Section 473 of the
Cr.P.C. is relevant, which is reproduced hereinbelow: -
" 473. Extension of period of limitation in certain cases.
Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing
provisions of this Chapter, any Court may take cognizance of
an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation, if it is
satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that

14
CRR 773 OF 2023

the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary
so to do in the interests of justice."
28. Under Section 473 of the Cr.P.C., courts are empowered to take
cognizance beyond the period of limitation if it is satisfied that the delay
has been properly explained or that it is necessary to do so in the
interest of justice. Economic offenses and large-scale defalcations of
public exchequer funds often involve layers of sophisticated
concealment, systemic camouflage, and administrative complicity,
which naturally take years to unearth, as is highlighted by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Tara Dutt (supra) . Therefore, the question of whether
the delay is fatal or whether the statutory interests of justice warrant
extension or condonation under Section 473 Cr.P.C. is a mixed question
of fact and law to be determined during trial, and cannot serve as a sole
ground for pre-trial quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly I
do not find merit in the defence raised by the petitioner relating to the
bar of the prosecution due to delay. As such this threshold point, is
decided in favour of the Opposite Parties without prejudice to the
substantive merits.

29. To appreciate the controversy, it is also apposite to examine the
statutory provisions of the offences invoked against the petitioner, on of
which, Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code provides:
" 409. Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by
banker, merchant or agent.

15
CRR 773 OF 2023

Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with
any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or
in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker,
attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of
that property, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
30. Further, Section 120A of the IPC defines criminal conspiracy as an
agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act, or an act
which is not illegal by illegal means, punishable under Section 120B
IPC. As expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala v.
P. Sugathan & Anr., [(2000) 8 SCC 203], a criminal conspiracy is
invariably hatched in secrecy, and its existence must be gathered from
the surrounding circumstances, the conduct of the parties, and the flow
of funds, rather than requiring direct ocular proof at the threshold, and
has observed that a conviction for criminal conspiracy cannot be based
on mere surmise and suspicion. There must be some nexus between
the accused and the crime. To prove a criminal conspiracy, there must
be evidence direct or circumstantial to show that there was an
agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence. There
must be a meeting of minds. Mere association or commercial dealings,
without more, cannot be elevated to the status of a criminal conspiracy.
31. Now I have taken up the question that whether the present case falls
within the recognized parameters for quashing, or whether the

16
CRR 773 OF 2023

materials collected during the police investigation disclose triable issues
that preclude interference at the threshold. On this point, the learned
advocate for the petitioner has strenuously urged that as an
independent commercial contractor, the petitioner’s firms executed the
204 shade net house projects strictly in accordance with approved
government specifications and that contemporaneous inspection
reports and completion certificates issued by the District Horticulture
Officer and KVK Nimpith agricultural scientists completely absolve the
petitioner of any wrongdoing. However, the prosecution has squarely
challenged these very certificates and inspection notes as being vitiated
by fraud, administrative collusion, and systemic complicity. The charge
sheet and supporting case diary materials reveal that public exchequer
funds amounting to approximately ₹ 5,61,00,000 were funnelled
through accounts controlled by the petitioner's dual proprietorship
firms (Aerotech Engineering Works and Nature Fresh Bio-Solution)
following the collection of signed blank cheque books from gullible,
illiterate farmers by the NGO.
32. Unlike cases where a purely private commercial dispute is clothed in
criminal garb with absolute absence of foundational ingredients, the
instant matter involves the alleged defalcation of massive public welfare
subsidies earmarked for development of the marginalized betel-vine
cultivators. The questions concerning how the NGO managed to
persuade farmers to part with signed blank cheques under alleged
administrative guidance, whether the petitioner acted in active
connivance with the primary accused (Subhrangshu Kamar) to siphon

17
CRR 773 OF 2023

off public funds, and whether the departmental clearances were a
product of fraudulent collusion are classic mixed questions of fact and
law.
33. It is a well-established principle of criminal jurisprudence that criminal
conspiracy is invariably hatched in secrecy, and direct ocular evidence
of a pre-planned meeting of minds is rarely available. As observed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Sugathan (supra) , the existence of a
criminal nexus or common intention must be gathered from the
surrounding circumstances, the conduct of the parties, and the flow of
funds. The active corporate-NGO linkages, the interchanging roles
across the petitioner's proprietorship firms, and the systematic routing
of funds into Bank of Baroda Account No. 3868000000113 standing in
the name of one of the petitioner’s firms, create a web of circumstantial
facts that cannot be brushed aside as a mere bona fide commercial
transaction at a pre-trial stage.
34. Similarly, the petitioner's reliance on technical lifespans under Bureau
of Indian Standards specifications (IS 16008:2012) and the question of
delay in setting the criminal machinery in motion constitute evidentiary
matters to be tested during a full-fledged trial through cross-
examination. This Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot conduct a mini-trial or weigh the probative
value of defence documents to subvert a police report under Section
173 Cr.P.C. that discloses prima facie materials in support of the
allegations charged against the petitioner. The charge sheet submitted

18
CRR 773 OF 2023

by the Investigating Officer discloses sufficient grounds to proceed
against the petitioner under Sections 409 and 120B IPC.
35. Consequently, upon a holistic appraisal of the rival contentions, the
case diary materials, and the settled legal position, this Court is of the
firm view that the present case does not fall within the parameters of
the rarest of rare cases warranting the invocation of inherent quashing
powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C . The disputed questions of fact
concerning mens rea , the validity of completion certificates, the exact
role played by the petitioner, and the existence of a criminal nexus
must be left for adjudication by the learned trial court upon adducing
legal evidence.
36. In light of the aforesaid discussions and findings, the criminal
revisional application being C.R.R. No. 773 of 2023 is found to be
devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed .
37. The interim order of stay, if any operating, stands vacated.
38. Pending Connected Application(s), if any, are disposed of accordingly.
39. There shall be no order as to costs.
th
40. The learned trial court (7 Court of the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Alipore) is directed to proceed with Special Case No. 13 of 2022
expeditiously and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any
observations made on the merits of the case herein, ensuring that both
parties are afforded full opportunity during trial.
41. Let a copy of this judgment along with the Trial Court Records (T.C.R.)
be transmitted to the learned Trial Court forthwith for necessary
information and compliance.

19
CRR 773 OF 2023

42. Case diary, be returned to the Learned Counsel for the State.
43. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be
supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.

(Uday Kumar, J.)