Calcutta High Court: A criminal revisional application was filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 by the petitioner seeking quashing of proceedings in a case registered under Sections 153, 500, 501, 509, 505, and 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 being accused of broadcasting derogatory content against the Chief Minister of West Bengal and other political leaders on YouTube, allegedly with the intent to provoke unrest and disrupt social harmony. Ajay Kumar Gupta, J., quashed the proceedings due to the absence of any sufficient or cogent evidence or even prima facie case against the petitioner.
The Court held that “Mere filing of charge sheet without any material or shaky evidence would not suffice the purpose of continuing trial against the petitioner”.
The case originated from a complaint alleging that the petitioner had conspired with others to upload offensive videos targeting the Chief Minister and other political figures. The police registered FIR and initiated an investigation, leading to the arrest of the petitioner. He was granted bail the following day.
Subsequently, the Investigating Officer filed Charge Sheet on 30-09-2022, exclusively against the petitioner, however, cognizance of the charges was taken on 12-10-2022 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah, South 24 Parganas. The petitioner, claiming to be innocent and falsely implicated, approached the High Court, arguing that the proceedings were malicious, lacked legal merit, and were an abuse of the judicial process.
The Court noted that while the allegations were serious, the prosecution had failed to present any substantive evidence to support its claims. The Court observed that:
-
The Investigating Officer did not retrieve any video clips or relevant data from YouTube to substantiate the accusations.
-
The only material collected was the seizure of a Samsung mobile phone, but no forensic examination was conducted to link it to the alleged offense.
-
Witness statements merely stated that derogatory videos were seen on the petitioner’s YouTube channel, but no specific details, timestamps, or descriptions of the content were provided.
-
No forensic expert report was submitted to establish that the petitioner was responsible for the alleged broadcasts.
The Court further noted that previous orders directing the prosecution to clarify the status of the digital evidence were ignored. Even in subsequent hearings, the State admitted its failure to retrieve any relevant data. Given these deficiencies, the Court found that the prosecution’s case lacked merit and did not meet the threshold for a fair trial.
Relying on the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Court reiterated that criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue if the allegations do not constitute an offense, if the evidence is inherently insufficient, or if the proceedings appear to be motivated by malice. In this case, the absence of digital evidence, lack of forensic examination, and failure to establish the petitioner’s involvement rendered the prosecution’s case untenable.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the criminal revisional application, quashing the proceedings and held that allowing the trial to continue in the absence of evidence would amount to a gross miscarriage of justice.
[Sourav Paul v State of West Bengal, C.R.R. 2581 of 2023 With CRAN 1/2023, decided on 26-02-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Mr. Mrityunjoy Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Manas Das, Adv. Mr. Arindam Poali, Adv.
For the State: Ms. Suman De, Adv
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
