Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Rishi Agarwal vs The State Of West Bengal And Anr on 3 November, 2022
Form J(1) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present :
The Hon'ble Justice Bibek Chaudhuri
CRR 217 of 2022
Rishi Agarwal
Vs.
The State of West Bengal and Anr.
Mr. Sourav Chatterjee
Mr. Rohan Ojha
...for the petitioner
Item No.29
Heard & Judgment on: 03.11.2022
Bibek Chaudhuri, J.
The petitioner is an accused in connection with G.R. Case
No. 87 of 2019 arising out of Mallarpur Police Station
Case No.29 of 2019 dated 30th January, 2019 under Sections
498A/406/323/325/354/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code read
with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Indisputably, charge sheet has been filed against the
petitioner and the aforementioned G.R. Case is pending before
the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampurhat. The
opposite party No.2 is the wife of the petitioner and the de facto
complainant of this case. The de facto complainant remains
unrepresented at the time of hearing of the instant revision.
The State of West Bengal is represented by Mr. Navanil De,
learned P.P.-in-charge.
The petitioner has challenged legality, validity and
propriety of an order dated 21st October, 2021 passed by the
learned Magistrate in the aforementioned case upon an
application filed on behalf of the petitioner praying for return of
the seized articles. It appears from the seizure list dated 3 rd
April, 2019 that as many as 38 items of gold jewellery, some of
which studded with valuable stones were seized as 'Alamats' of
Mollarpur Police Station Case No.29 of 2019 dated 30 January,
2019, subsequently registered as G.R. Case No.87 of 2019.
The petitioner filed an application praying for return of the
seized articles on production of wealth tax receipts of the seized
ornaments claiming to be ornaments belonging to the family of
the petitioner and not 'Stridhan' properties of the opposite party
No.2. The learned Magistrate refused the prayer for return of
the seized ornaments to the accused /petitioner on the ground
that he failed to produce any document of ownership in respect
of the said ornaments and wealth tax receipts are not
documents of ownership of the seized ornaments. It is also
recorded by the learned Magistrate that the de facto
complainant /opposite party No.2 could not produce any
document of ownership in respect of the said ornaments.
It is submitted by Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate for the
petitioner under the above mentioned factual backdrop that the
seized ornaments are now lying in police 'Malkhana'. It may be
forwarded to the Court 'Malkhana' during trial of the case.
According to Mr. Chatterjee, it is not at all safe to keep such
valuable ornaments either in police or Court 'Malkhana' and the
trial Court is under obligation to take step for proper protection
of the seized ornaments. It is also urged by them that the seized
ornaments belong to the family members of the petitioner and
most of them are acquired long ago and, therefore, it is not
possible for the petitioner to produce cash memo etc. in respect
of the said ornaments. However, the petitioner and his family
members, as the case may be, went on filing wealth tax report
since long way before the initiation of Mallarpur Police Station
Case No.29 of 2019. The learned Magistrate failed to appreciate
the prayer of the petitioner in proper perspective and wrongly
refused to accept the wealth tax receipts in respect of the
ornaments.
Learned P.P.-in-charge also submits that the ornaments
are required to be kept and protected under proper custody
during pendency of the case because the said ornaments are
required to be returned by either of the parties on conclusion of
trial.
Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and
considering the nature of the seized property this Court is of the
view that immediate interim protection of the ornaments is
absolutely necessary. Therefore, this Court has no other
alternative but to set aside the order dated 21 st October, 2021
passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Rampurhat.
Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampurhat is
requested to rehear the application serving notice to both the de
facto complainant and the petitioner within three weeks from the
date of communication of this order. He is also directed to
specifically come to a finding as right to the interim protection of
the seized ornaments during the pendency of G.R. Case No.87 of
2019 on the basis of the documents that may be filed by the
parties before him at the time of hearing of the application.
The instant revision is, accordingly, disposed of with the
above direction.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)
