HC takes up Tapas appeal

Image
Press Trust of India Kolkata
Last Updated : Jul 30 2014 | 6:15 PM IST
The Calcutta High Court today took up an appeal against a trial court order directing registration of FIR against Trinamool Congress MP Tapas Pal for his insensitive comments against women and a CID probe into it, saying that the question to be decided was whether he had committed a cognisable offence or not.
A division bench comprising Justice Girish Gupta and Justice T Chakraborty asked the counsel for the petitioner against Pal to read out the alleged utterances of Pal in public meetings and explain whether the complaint contained any cognisable offence by the MP or whether Pal has committed any cognisable offence.
Both the West Bengal government and Pal himself have moved appeals challenging Justice Dipankar Dutta's order.
Aniruddha Chatterjee, counsel for petitioner Biplab Chowdhury who had filed a complaint against the two-time MP at Nakashipara police station in Nadia district within Pal's constituency Krishnagar, submitted that the actor-turned-politician had said "he was carrying a gun."
At this, Justice Gupta said, "He is an MP, he is an honourable person, he can carry a revolver."
"A goon carrying a revolver and an MP carrying a revolver is different," Justice Gupta observed adding that merely carrying a gun cannot be an offence as it might be licensed.
The bench observed that mere intention of committing an offence is not a cognisable offence.
It observed that there were four parts to an act being construed as cognisable offence, which are -- intention, preparation, attempt and commission.
Chatterjee, who submitted copies of newspaper reports and compact disc (CD) containing Pal's utterances at public meetings at Chowmaha village within Nakashipara police station in Nadia, stated that Pal has also claimed to be a top gangster.
The counsel submitted that the MP also allegedly said that he would unleash his boys to rape women folk of CPI(M) activists.
Chatterjee claimed that it amounted to incitement and as such was a cognisable offence under Section 153 a (i) (hate speech) of IPC.
As the time for the day's proceeding neared an end, Kalyan Banerjee, a TMC MP and a senior advocate who appeared for the state challenging the single bench order, prayed for a stay on Justice Dipankar Dutta's order.
He submitted that as Justice Dutta had on Monday ordered that an FIR be registered against Pal within 72 hours of posting of his order in the high court's website, a stay be granted on the order.
The division bench directed that "since it was seized of the matter, the order will not be given effect till 2.00 PM tomorrow."
Hearing of the matter was adjourned till tomorrow.
*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Jul 30 2014 | 6:15 PM IST

Next Story