SWAPAN KUMAR CHATTERJEE versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

SWAPAN KUMAR CHATTERJEE versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Given the long delay since registration of the case in 1983, repeated failures by the prosecution to procure the attendance of the handwriting expert despite multiple opportunities and High Court directions, and the prejudice to the accused, the Trial Court and High Court erred in allowing the belated application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.; therefore the orders permitting the summoning were quashed and the application dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Swapan Kumar Chatterjee; Respondent: Central Bureau of Investigation
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
04 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2019 / Appeal to the Supreme Court From the High Court of Calcutta Judgment and Order Dated 04.05.2017 in CRR No. 440 of 2015
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Section 311 Cr.p.c., Summoning Witnesses, Recall and Re Examination of Witnesses, Adjournment and Delay in Trial, Abuse of Process
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Evidence Section 311 Cr.p.c. Summoning Witnesses Recall and Re Examination of Witnesses Adjournment and Delay in Trial Abuse of Process

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Swapan Kumar Chatterjee

Appellant

Central Bureau of Investigation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2019 / Appeal to the Supreme Court From the High Court of Calcutta Judgment and Order Dated 04.05.2017 in CRR No. 440 of 2015

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Scope and exercise of power under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court and High Court erred in allowing the prosecution to summon a handwriting expert after long delay and repeated failure to produce him
  3. 3 Whether successive applications and failure to produce witness justified refusal to summon at belated stage

Ratio Decidendi

Given the long delay since registration of the case in 1983, repeated failures by the prosecution to procure the attendance of the handwriting expert despite multiple opportunities and High Court directions, and the prejudice to the accused, the Trial Court and High Court erred in allowing the belated application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.; therefore the orders permitting the summoning were quashed and the application dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of the High Court dated 04.05.2017 quashed
  • Order of the Trial Court dated 05.12.2014 quashed