15.09.2026 Item no.15. Ct. No.237 Suman C.R.R. 3279 of 2026 Md. Tosiuf @ Md. Taushif @ Gera @ Tinku Vs. The State of West Bengal Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta Ms. Sofia Nesar Mr. Santanu Sett ..for the petitioner Mr. Kallol Mondal, Ld. P.P. Mr. Pritam Roy Ms. Sagnika Banerjee ..for the State The petitioner challenges an order dated June 19, 2026, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 1st Court at Howrah, in connection with Sessions Trial Case No. 24 of 2025. Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that although a learned Special Public Prosecutor was entrusted with the conduct of the case, the matter has been conducted by another advocate appointed by him. It is submitted that the learned Special Public Prosecutor does not have the authority to entrust the conduct of the matter to another advocate by appointing him for such purpose. It is further submitted by Mr. Gupta that documents other than those contemplated under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ought to be supplied to the petitioner if the prosecution intends to rely upon such documents. Mr. Pritam Roy, learned advocate appearing for the State, on the other hand, submits that the learned Special Public Prosecutor never entrusted the conduct of the case to any other advocate on behalf of the State. It is submitted that the other advocate merely assisted the learned Special Public Prosecutor in conducting the case. On only two occasions, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appeared through virtual mode, while the learned advocate assisted him in the matter. With regard to the supply of documents, it is submitted that if the prosecution intends to rely upon any document other than those referred to in Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the same shall be supplied to the petitioner. I find no justification to interfere with the order dated June 19, 2026, passed by the learned Sessions Judge. The order of the learned Sessions Judge clearly records that the learned Special Public Prosecutor was present through virtual mode. The learned Sessions Judge has also rightly observed that the learned junior advocate merely acted under the instructions of and assisted the learned Special Public Prosecutor. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the representation of the State by the learned Special Public Prosecutor before the learned Sessions Judge. Needless to mention, the petitioner shall be supplied with any document upon which the prosecution intends to rely, if such document is not otherwise covered by the documents 2 contemplated under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. With the aforesaid observations, C.R.R. 3279 of 2026 is disposed of. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned advocates for the parties on usual undertakings. (Kausik Chanda, J.) 3