[Nandigram Violence] Supreme Court To Hear Case Against West Bengal Government & Mamta Banerjee's Election Agent On April 12
The Supreme Court on Tuesday adjourned the 14 year old re instituted criminal suit against SK Supian, Election Agent and others in relation to the Nandigram Violence to April 12, 2021.
Bench comprising Justice NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant & Justice Aniruddha Bose was hearing the case whereby Sr Advocate Siddharth Luthra & Sr Adv Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for the State & Sr Adv Mukul Rohatagi for the respondent Dipak Misra.
The Bench adjourned the matter upon the request by Advocate Jayant Mohan since Mr Mukul Rohatagi was unavailable.
On the last date of hearing, the Supreme Court Division Bench comprising Justice Indira Banerjee & Justice Krishna Murari granted interim stay against the order dated March 5, 2021 (“Impugned Order”) passed by Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Thottathil B Radhakrishnan & Justice Arijit Banerjee of Calcutta High Court which resulted in re institution of criminal case against SK Supian, election agent to candidate in West Bengal Assembly Elections who was discharged or acquitted in February, 2020.
In the present matter, the petitioner was alleged to be a part of unlawful assembly in mass protests against the improper land acquisition measures undertaken by the Government of West Bengal during 2007-2009 to create a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) in Nandigram.
In February 2020 & June 2020, the Public Prosecutor filed application in these cases for withdrawal of prosecution & therefore the petitioner was discharged or acquitted by the Additional CJM vide order dated 10th February 2020 u/s 321 CrPC, 1973 in certain criminal cases. Thereafter, the Calcutta High Court in two PIL’s titled as Dipak Misra v. State of West Bengal & Others & Nilanjan Adhikary v. State of West Bengal & Ors vide order dated 5th March 2021 reversed the order pertaining to discharge or acquittal of the petitioner. Vide order dated March 15,2021, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance of the impugned order stayed its order for permitting withdrawal of prosecution u/s 321 Crpc,1973 & reinstated criminal case against the petitioner.
“The petitioner was not impleaded as a necessary party originally before passing the order. Supian only became aware of the cases upon the knowledge of initiation of process to issue arrest warrants upon reinstitution of criminal cases," the appeal stated.
While Vehemently opposing the impugned order, the petitioner in his plea submitted that he had no knowledge of the grounds for such relief & that he was not granted any opportunity of being heard. It was also submitted that, “The impugned order & the consequent re institution of cases were impairing his ability to discharge his functions as an election agent under the Representation of People Act,1951.”
The matter is now listed for hearing on Monday.
Case Title: State of West Bengal & Ors v. Dipak Mishra