Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
CRR-348-2016 on 8 April, 2016
Author: R. K. Bag
Bench: R. K. Bag
1 2016.
p.b.
CRR 348 of 2016 Mr. Ayan Bhattacharya, Mr. Anjan Datta, Mr. Abhijit Sarkar.
....for the petitioner.
Mr. Manjit Singh, Mr. Anand Keshari.
.....for the State.
The petitioner has preferred this revision under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order dated August 18, 2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 1st Court, Paschim Medinipur, in Sessions Trial No.V/June of 2005 corresponding to Sessions Trial No.XV/June of 2006, by which learned Judge of the trial court refused to grant permission to the petitioner to use the seized copper bars.
It appears from record that 53 copper bars of different sizes and 114 copper bars of different sizes were seized by the police in connection with Debra Police Station Case No.135 of 2004 dated September 17, 2004 under Section 302/201/394/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It further appears from record that the charge sheet was submitted in the said criminal case on completion of investigation against six accused persons for the offence under Section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code. It also appears from record that the accused persons are facing trial in the said case where 78 witnesses are cited in the charge sheet. 2 It appears from the impugned order under challenge in the revision that on October 12, 2004 learned Magistrate returned the seized copper bars to the petitioner on execution of bond of Rs.6 lakh on condition to produce the same when called for by the court. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application before the court of learned Magistrate praying for permission to use the said copper bars which was rejected by learned Magistrate on November 4, 2006. The petitioner challenged the said order passed by learned Magistrate before the High Court by preferring criminal revision being CRR 391 of 2007. On March 23, 2007 learned single Judge of this Court disposed of CRR 391 of 2007 by giving direction to learned Magistrate to reconsider the prayer of the petitioner in respect of disposal of the seized copper bars. However, learned Judge of the trial court rejected the prayer of the petitioner for use of copper bars and directed the petitioner to execute a bond of Rs.27 lakh for release of the copper bars, though the said seized copper bars were already returned to the petitioner on execution of bond. Ultimately, learned Judge of the trial court did not grant permission to the petitioner to use the seized copper bars.
Mr. Ayan Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be granted permission to use the seized copper bars after keeping a few seized bars as sample and after taking photographs of the seized copper bars. However, he submits that the petitioner is ready to furnish fresh bond, but the petitioner may not be saddled with the liability to furnish bank guarantee for use of the copper bars which are the properties of the petitioner. 3
Mr. Singh, learned P.P. submits that the previous order passed by learned Magistrate may be modified by giving direction to the petitioner to furnish fresh bond on some conditions.
On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the present case, I find that the seized copper bars were not used for commission of the offence, but those copper bars are required during the trial of the case. It appears from the order dated July 21, 2007 passed by learned Magistrate that the investigating officer assessed the valuation of the copper bars as Rs.13,50,325/- in the year 2007 which might have been slightly increased during last nine years. It is relevant to point out that learned Magistrate has already returned the seized copper bars to the petitioner on execution of bond of Rs.6 lakh on condition that the copper bars may be produced in court as and when called for. Accordingly, in super-session of the earlier orders passed by learned Magistrate for return of the seized copper bars, I would like to give direction to the investigating officer of the case to take photographs of the seized copper bars and to keep a few samples of the seized copper bars for use during the trial. A copy of the photograph along with negative and the samples kept from the said copper bars by the investigating officer will be produced before the trial court for use during the trial of the case. The petitioner being the bona fide claimant of the seized copper bars is permitted to use the same on condition of executing fresh bond of Rs.15 lakh on condition that the order of final disposal of the seized copper bars will be made by learned Judge of the trial court on conclusion of trial of the case. The order dated August 18, 2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast 4 Track, 1st Court, Paschim Medinipur in S.T. No.V/June, 2005 (S.T. No.XV/June, 2006) is modified to the above extent.
With the above direction, the criminal revision is disposed of. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.
(R. K. Bag, J.)