Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Abu Motaleb Mondal @ Bablu Khan vs The State Of West Bengal on 15 September, 2014
Author: Ashim Kumar Roy
Bench: Ashim Kumar Roy
In the High Court at Calcutta Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:-
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Ashim Kumar Roy CRR No.2706 of 2014 Abu Motaleb Mondal @ Bablu Khan v.
The State of West Bengal
Mr.Navanil De .. for the petitioners.
Mr.Manjit Singh, PP
Mr.Imran Ali .. for the State.
Heard on: August 29, 2014.
Order on: September , 2014.
Ashim Kumar Roy, J.- The petitioner, who has been charge-sheeted under sections 379/411/414/406/407/34 IPC and section 7(1)(a)(ii) Essential Commodities Act in connection with Doulatabad Police Station Case No.37 of 2013, has approached for quashing of the charge-sheet.
The only question arose for consideration in this matter, whether the allegation made in the First Information Report and those collected during investigation makes out a prima facie case against the petitioner or not.
Having regard to that going through the First Information Report, I find this is a case that on February 21, 2013 at around 8.00 am in the morning on active source information, the police held a raid to the houses of the accused, Kader Sk., Saidul Sk., Maser Sk. and recovered a huge quantity of rice, wheat, sugar, atta and during investigation it was found that a huge quantity of those articles were the parts of the Public Distribution System and meant for the persons below the poverty line.
It is the case against the petitioner that he is one of the MR dealers having his business in the same village and in the same are and ration commodities seized from the possession of the accused persons or part of the commodities, which were allotted to him. The other allegation in the First Information Report received sufficient support from the materials collected during investigation. From the side of the State, it is pointed out that the petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail was not only rejected by the learned court below thrice, but once by this court.
Now having regard to the aforesaid materials, undoubtedly, this is not a fit case for quashing. Since those materials prima facie pointed out the petitioner's involvement in the commission of offences. This application, accordingly, stands dismissed and disposed of.
However, as prayer for the operation of the warrant of arrest shall remain stayed for a period of two weeks from this date and during that period, if the petitioner surrenders in the court and prays for bail, such prayer shall be considered in accordance with law.
I make it clear that that after the expiry of the aforesaid period, if not the petitioner surrenders in the court, the order of warrant of arrest shall be revived and restored and the learned court below shall have the liberty to execute the warrant of arrest against the petitioner in accordance with without any further reference to this court.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.
(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) sm.
In the High Court at Calcutta Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:-
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Ashim Kumar Roy CRR No.2731 of 2014 Sufal Rajoar v.
Sukumar Rajoar & Ors
Mr.Md.Abdur Rahaman .. for the petitioner
Mr.Ayan Bose. .. for the State.
Heard on: August 29, 2014.
Order on: September15, 2014.
Ashim Kumar Roy, J.- Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and considered their respective submissions.
It is the case of a criminal revisionist that in connection with a proceeding under section 144 CrPC by an order passed on May 5, 2014 the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer, Kaliganj was ordered to measure the suit property and make over the possession of the same to the opposite party no.1 according to his available valid documents.
It is further submitted that pursuant to the said order, the Revenue Inspector, Kaliganj issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to appear before him for taking steps in terms thereof.
It is submitted that the order impugned is wholly without jurisdiction and, therefore, the step taken in terms thereof has no force.
On the other-hand, the learned counsel for the State submitted that the said order, which was passed in connection with a proceeding under section 144 CrPC, was passed on May 5, 2014 and already sixty (60) days having expired, the same has lost its force and no further step can be taken on the strength thereof. He further submitted that the notice in question was issued in connection with a different proceeding, being Miscellaneous Case No.1654/EM/2014 and, therefore, there is nothing wrong.
Having regard to the facts, no notice was issued in connection with the impugned proceeding. This criminal revisional application has no merit and stands dismissed and disposed of.
Although this criminal revision fails, but, as a matter of abundant caution, it be noted that in connection with a proceeding under section 144 CrPC, a court can at best pass an order restraining a party from doing any particular act so as to prevent the breach of peace, but the learned Executive Magistrate has no jurisdiction to decide the right, title and interest in respect of any property and on the question of possession.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.
(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) sm.