Sri Sujit Kumar Biswas vs Unknown
2022 Latest Caselaw 3253 Cal

14.6.2022 Court No.29

SD CRR 1792 of 2020

In the matter of: Sri Sujit Kumar Biswas ....petitioner.

Mr. Susnigdho Bhattacharyya ...for the Petitioner.

Mr. Prasun Kumar Dutta Md. Kutubuddin Mr. Santanu Deb Roy ... for the State.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated

December 2, 2020, passed in C. Case 12/2020, by Ld. Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate at Bongaon, present revisional application

has been preferred.

The allegation levelled is on February 6, 2020 a team of

officers intercepted one TATA 709 bearing No. WB 25E 8764 at

Praphullnagar Sahapara Math, Post Office- Bongaon which was

carrying illegally total 253 number of live Indian soft shelled turtles

and 61 numbers dead of soft shelled turtles. Accordingly, on

interception the said turtles were recovered and seized and the

driver and helper of the truck were arrested and they were

produced before the learned Magistrate and subsequently, they

were released on bail by the learned Magistrate.

The petitioner claimed himself to be the owner of said TATA

709 bearing No. WB 25E 8764 which was seized by the Seizure

Officer in connection with Complaint Case No.POR-06/BNG of

2019-20 dated February 6, 2020.

It is contended by petitioner that seized articles were loaded

in the said vehicle without informing the owner of the vehicle. On

November 18, 2020, the petitioner filed an application under

Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned

Magistrate for releasing of the seized truck. After hearing respective

parties and after perusing the prayer of the enquiry officer for an

order of confiscation, the learned ACJM by an order dated

December 2, 2020 has been pleased to reject the petition for

returning the seized vehicle. Learned Magistrate further opined that

the goods recovered are required to be confiscated under the

provisions of the Indian Forest Act.

Mr. Bhattacharyya on behalf of petitioner contended that the

vehicle is the only source of income of the petitioner and the seized

truck is being kept in an uncared manner under the open sky and

accordingly prayed for releasing of the vehicle in question in any

terms and conditions.

In this context the petitioner has also relied upon judgments

reported in (2004) 1 SCC 293, 2003 C Cr LR (Cal) 929, (2016) 4

CHN (cal) 713 and also three unreported judgments passed by this

Court in CRR 1882 of 2019, CRR 537 of 2020 and CRR 695 of

2012.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case it

appears to me that there is no necessity to keep the said vehicle

under the open sky to get it damaged further and no purpose will

be served by making it junk day by day.

Accordingly, learned ACJM, Bongaon is directed to grant

interim custody of the vehicle in question to the petitioner on

condition that the petitioner will execute a bond of Rs.10,00,000/-

along with bank guarantee of Rs.10,00,000/- before the learned

Magistrate. The petitioner will also file a coloured photocopy of the

vehicle signed by both the investigating agency and the registered

owner. The petitioner shall also file an undertaking before the court

below that he shall produce the vehicle when it would be asked to

produce either for the trial or for confiscation proceeding and

petitioner will not change the basic nature and character of the

vehicle without taking leave of the court.

CRR 1792 of 2020 is accordingly disposed of.

The office of the Legal Remembrancer is directed to regularize

the appointment of Mr. Prasun Kumar Dutta along with Md.

Kutubuddin and Mr. Santanu Deb Roy in this matter.

(Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)