Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Titan Company Limited vs Unknown on 5 October, 2021
17
5.10.2021
sb
CRR 692 of 2020
(Via video conference)
In the matter of : Titan Company Limited
(formerly Titan Industries Limited)
.......petitioner
Mr. Sandipan Ganguly
Mr. Somopriyo Chowdhury
Mr. Pratik Shanu ...for the petitioner
Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, Ld. P.P.
Mr. Arijit Ganguly ...for the State
The subject matter of the revisional application relates to
an issue of Alamats connected with Sessions trial no. 252 of
2010 arising out of Domjur Police Station case no. 140 of 2010.
After conclusion of the sessions trial by the learned Sessions
Judge, Howrah and convicting the accused persons who faced
trial, the learned court by the order dated 28.11.2019 was
pleased to observe that "No order as regards disposal of alamats
is passed as the trial in respect of two absconding accused
namely Amit Das and Kartick Shil has not been commenced and
that apart, trial is still pending against Saheb Gayen, child in
conflict with law."
Mr. Ganguly, learned senior advocate appearing for the
petitioner is aggrieved regarding the phrase, used by learned
Sessions Judge, which was restricted to disposal of alamats as
in this case, the subject matter related to huge amount of gold
ornaments/jewelleries which was the property of the present
petitioner before this court.
According to learned Senior advocate, the jurisdiction of
the trial court was for disposal, destruction, confiscation or
delivery. However, the learned Sessions Court only considered
the issue regarding disposal.
Mr. Mukherjee, learned Public Prosecutor at the inception
challenged the maintainability of the revisional application as
according to him, the order so passed by the learned Session
Judge, was in the nature of an order under Section 452 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure which is appealable under Section
454 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Having regard to the subject matter of the case and the
manner in which the relevant part has been dealt with by the
learned Sessions Judge restricting his view only in respect of
disposal of the alamats for future requirements for absconding
accused or the trial pending before the Juvenile Court, I am of
the view that the learned trial court being the Session Judge,
Howrah would freshly pass an order, if an application is
preferred regarding the retention or release of the goods, Keeping
in mind the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in
(2002) 10 SCC 283 and General Insurance Council and
Others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others reported in
(2010) 6 SCC 768.
The learned Sessions Judge would independently consider
the issue of releasing the same without being influenced by any
observation passed by this court and in the background of the
fact that the valuable articles were produced in course of trial
initially and whether any avenue can be created for secondary
evidence for trial in respect of other accused persons which are
pending or in respect of persons who are absconding.
The learned Sessions Judge will dispose of the application
preferably within 60 days from filing of this case.
With the aforesaid observation, CRR 692 of 2020 is
disposed of.
Pending application, if any, is consequently disposed of.
All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly
downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)
