Relief for BJP's Amit Malviya as Calcutta High Court orders WB Police to interrogate him via VC

The Calcutta High Court recently granted relief to Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) IT Cell chief Amit Malviya in a case registered against him for provoking communal enmity..Single-judge Justice Jay Sengupta said that the notice by the Police under Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) asking Malviya to appear before the police for interrogation, did not contain any date. The Court, therefore, directed that the police shall interrogate him via video conference (VC) only after giving him 48 days prior notice. "It appears that one of the notices issued under Section 41A of the Code does not contain any date. The notices allegedly reached the petitioner after the dates were fixed for appearance. It is also alleged that the police are giving short dates to appear. In view of these and in the interest of justice, for the present, the investigating agency shall interrogate the petitioner over video conference after giving a 48 hours’ prior notice by e-mail," the single-judge ordered.The e-mail id of the petitioner shall be provided by the petitioner to the advocate for the State in course, the judge ordered while adjourning the matter till April 25.Pertinently, the Court also ordered that the First Information Report (FIR) registered against Malviya be uploaded on the official website of the State police. The Court noted that the police violated the ruling of the Supreme Court in the Youth Bar Association of India vs Union of India, which mandates uploading of the FIR on the police's official website."It appears that there is a violation of the direction of the Apex Court in the Youth Bar Association of India in respect of uploading of the FIR in question. Let the FIR be uploaded forthwith in the official website of the police," the Court ordered..Malviya moved the Court contending that he is busy with the ensuing Lok Sabha elections and thus, cannot participate in the interrogation by the State Police. Therefore, he has appointed his friend as an executant for dealing with the instant petition. He alleged that he received some notices with short dates and undated notices.The State challenged the maintainability of the petition, stating it was not accompanied by a power of attorney or authorisation. It stated that the investigating agency may need to interrogate Malviya physically in terms of Section 41A of the CrPC.The Court, however, held that the petition was maintainable..Advocates Sourav Chatterjee, Brajesh Jha, Satadru Lahiri, Vikash Singh, S Azam, Kanchan Jaju and Megha Dutta appeared for Malviya.Advocates Amal Kumar Sen, Suman Sengupta and Jaladhi Das represented the State..[Read Order]