Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

Calcutta High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Truck Driver for Unlawful Entry into No-Entry Zone

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent ruling, the Calcutta High Court’s Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri has quashed the criminal proceedings against a truck driver accused of unlawfully entering a designated no-entry zone. Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay, presiding over the case of Jamir Hossain v. The State of West Bengal, determined that the petitioner’s actions did not amount to the offenses alleged under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

The complaint against the truck driver was filed by a police officer, stating that the driver had affixed a sticker on the vehicle indicating the “On Duty PDS Food and Supply Department, Government of West Bengal” while entering the no-entry zone. However, the court found that the petitioner’s actions did not fall within the definitions of the offenses mentioned.

Justice Bandyopadhyay highlighted that the intercepted truck and its cargo, consisting of river bedded materials, were not proven to be stolen or disputed. Moreover, the court emphasized that the petitioner’s alleged offense was primarily related to violating traffic rules rather than engaging in fraudulent activities or forgery.

While quashing the criminal case, the court also directed the relevant authorities to establish procedures to prevent traffic rule violations through deceptive means. They were instructed to issue restrictive passes to exempted vehicles and maintain strict vigilance to curb malpractices.

This ruling serves as a reminder of the importance of striking a balance between traffic regulations and ensuring compliance with the law.

Date of Decision: 12th May 2023

Jamir Hossain vs The State of West Bengal

Latest Legal News