34. 22.09.2026. Court No.237. (Pritam) CRR 3034 of 2026. The State of West Bengal. -Vs.- Sadik Hossain @ Sadique Hussain. Mr. Kallol Mondal, Ld. PP., Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Ms. Namrata Chatterjee, Mr. Sreyash Kumar Singh. ...…for the petitioner/State. Mr. Santanu Sett. .....for the opposite party. Let the affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of the petitioner/State be kept with the records. The present revisional application has been filed by the State challenging the order dated July 9, 2026, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Bichar Bhawan, Calcutta, in Sessions Case No. 94 of 2014, corresponding to Hare Street Police Station Case No. 379 of 2014 dated June 28, 2014, under Sections 392/397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 25(1B)(a)/27 of the Arms Act. By the impugned order, the learned Judge rejected a petition dated June 8, 2026, filed by the prosecution under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2 It appears that, by an order dated November 3, 2025, passed in CRM(M) 1818 of 2025, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police-in-Charge, Anti-Dacoity Section, Detective Department, Lalbazar, to monitor the case and ensure compliance with the schedule fixed for examination of witnesses before the learned trial court. Accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge fixed a schedule for conclusion of the trial within a period of four months. The trial, however, could not be concluded within the stipulated period. By an order dated May 13, 2026, the learned Judge closed the evidence and fixed the matter for examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Mr. Kallol Mondal, learned Public Prosecutor, submits that, on several occasions, the hearing of the case was adjourned at the instance of the accused persons, resulting in the deferment of the cross- examination of the witnesses. Consequently, the evidence of the remaining seven witnesses, out of a total of thirteen witnesses, could not be completed. He, however, submits that, having regard to the gravity of the offences involved, the State may be afforded an opportunity to produce the remaining witnesses for examination. 3 It appears that the following witnesses are yet to be examined: two seizure-list witnesses, one T.I. Parade witness, one learned Judicial Magistrate who conducted the T.I. Parade, one arms expert, and two Investigating Officers. Having regard to the gravity of the offences involved and the nature of the witnesses yet to be examined, this Court is of the view that, in order to subserve the interest of justice, the State should be afforded another opportunity to produce the remaining witnesses, particularly when the failure to comply with the earlier schedule cannot be attributed solely to the prosecution. Accordingly, the order dated July 9, 2026, as well as the subsequent orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge in connection with the said proceedings, are set aside. The learned Sessions Judge is directed to fix a fresh schedule for examination of the remaining witnesses so that the evidence may be concluded within a period of three months from the date of reopening of the trial court after the ensuing Puja vacation. Needless to mention, if the fresh schedule is not complied with on account of any laches or negligence on the part of the prosecution, the learned Sessions Judge shall be at liberty to close the evidence of the prosecution and proceed with the case in accordance with law. 4 With the aforesaid observations and directions, CRR 3034 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.)