Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Subhodip Mondal vs Unknown on 26 May, 2022
03 26.05.2022 CRR 1820 of 2022
Dd
Court 7
(vacation Bench)
In the matter of : Subhodip Mondal
... petitioner
Mr. Tanmay Chowdhury,
Ms. Ritoprita Ghosh, Advocates
.... ....for the petitioner
Mr. Prasun Kr. Dutta, ld. APP
Ms. Amita Gaur,
... ...For the State
Mr. Prasun Kr. Dutta, ld. APP also with Ms. Amita Gaur
appears for the State. The concerned authority is directed to
regularize their appointments.
This revisional application has been preferred against an
Order no. 5 dated 10.05.2022 wherein the trial Court was pleased
to reject the petitioner's prayer for interim custody of the seized
tractor in favour of petitioner, on the ground that there is no
specific provision of interim release of a seized vehicle which was
seized in connection with Section 21(1) of the Mines and Mineral
(Development & Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015, rather sub-
Section 4(a) of Section 21 of the said Act prescribes the
confiscation of seized articles by an order of Court, competent to
take cognizance under said Act and said competent Court is
Special Court under Section 30(B) of the Act having equal status
and power of Court of Sessions.
Learned Trial Court also relied upon a judgment of Madras
High Court delivered on 23.03.2022 in Criminal R.C. No. 755 of
2021 in Krishna Moorti vs. the State.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the
petitioner is the registered owner of the tractor in question being
registration no. WB 16 BB 6721 and all on a sudden he came to
know that the said vehicle has been intercepted by the police on
the allegation of carrying illegal sand-mix earth on April 30, 2022,
along with four other tractors. The petitioner had prayed for
return of the said seized tractor before the Learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate where the case is pending being G.R.
Case No. 470 of 2022 and on the basis of the said application,
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was pleased to call for
a report from the concerned Police Station. Subsequently, on May
10, 2022 the concerned Investigating Authority had submitted a
report disclosing that they have no objection to return the seized
vehicle owned by the petitioner, Subhodip Mondal.
It is further submitted by the petitioner that the provision
for interim relief of the seized vehicle as mentioned by the learned
Magistrate in order impugned does not apply in the present case
and nowhere in the said provision it has been mentioned that the
said authority has been entrusted only to the special court and
before commitment, learned Magistrate is wholly authorized and
empowered to deal with the prayer of the petitioner to release the
seized vehicle. Accordingly, the petitioner has prayed for passing
order directing the learned ACJM, Arambagh, Hooghly to hand
over interim custody of the seized vehicle in favour of the
petitioner upon furnishing proper bond.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the
Investigating Authority has submitted no-objection in respect of
the seized tractor and as such, he has got no objection, if the
interim custody is given to the petitioner/owner of the said
tractor, except the loaded sand-mix earth which has been seized
in connection with the present case.
Considering the submission of both the parties and in view
of the fact and circumstances of the present case and also relying
upon the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Sunderbhai Ambala Desai Vs. State of Gujrat, 2002 supp
(3) SCR 39, I find that it is a fit case where the prayer for interim
custody should be given to the petitioner in order to avoid further
damage of the tractor in question and no effective purpose will be
served by making it junk day by day at the police station
premises.
In view of the above, learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Arambagh, Hooghly is hereby directed to give interim
custody of the seized tractor being registration no. WB 16 BB
6721 along with all seized connected original papers but not
loaded sand-mix earth which was loaded and has been seized in
connection with the present case in favour of the
petitioner/owner Subhodip Mondal on condition of furnishing a
bank guarantee of Rs.15 lakh and also a bond of similar amount.
The petitioner will also file one coloured photo duly signed by the
petitioner and the Investigating Authority before the learned
Magistrate and learned Magistrate will give interim custody of the
said tractor to the petitioner also on condition that he will not
change the basic nature and character of the tractor and will
produce the said tractor before the Court concerned as and when
it will be asked to produce either during trial or for the purpose of
confiscation at the end of the trial.
CRR 1820 of 2022 is disposed of accordingly.
(Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J)
