Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Om Prakash Shaw vs The State Of West Bengal on 24 January, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Debangsu Basak
And
The Hon'ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi
C.R.A. 232 OF 2021
Om Prakash Shaw
VS.
The State of West Bengal
For the Appellant : Mr. Uday Sankar Chattopadhyay
Mr. Suman Sankar Chattopadhyay
Mr. Santanu Maji
Mr. Subhayu Das
Mr. Pronoy Basak
Ms. Trisha Rakshit
Mr. Gaurab Das
Mr. Debdipta Banerjee
For the State : Mr. Rudradipta Nandy
Ms. Sonali Das
Heard and Judgment on: January 24, 2023
DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-
1.
Written notes on argument filed in Court be taken on
record.
2. The appeal is directed against Order No. 1 dated July 15,
2021 passed in connection with Sessions Case No. 120 of
2005 corresponding to Sessions Trial No. (03 April of
2006) arising out of Jorabagan Police Station Case No. 98
of 2005 dated August 12, 2005.
3. The learned Trial Judge acquitted the accused at the trial
by a judgment and order dated December 21, 2020. The
learned Trial Judge held that the evidence and materials
brought on record established that the prosecution
evidence was grossly inadequate to bring home the
charge of armed robbery against the accused persons.
The accused persons were acquitted.
4. No appeal was preferred by the appellant against the
judgment and order dated December 21, 2020 acquitting
the accused. The State also did not prefer any appeal
against the judgment and order dated December 21,
2020 of acquittal.
5. In the judgment and order dated December 21, 2020, the
learned Trial Judge held as follows:
"Consequently, this court is not in a position to
conclusively hold that the jewelleries/utensils,
admitted into evidence in the present case, indeed
belonged to the shop of the defacto complainant."
6. The appellant filed a put up petition and a petition under
Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)
praying for delivery of the property, which were seized by
the police personnel during investigation of the case.
7. Such 452 Cr.P.C. petition was disposed of by Order No. 1
dated July 15, 2021, which is under challenge in the
present appeal.
8. Admittedly, the appellant did not prefer any appeal
against the judgment and order dated December 21,
2020 acquitting the accused. In response to a query of
the Court, learned advocate for the appellant submits
that, the present appeal is directed against the order
dated July 15, 2021 refusing to allow the 452 Cr.P.C.
application. In such judgment and order dated
December 21, 2020, the learned Trial Judge held that the
Court was not in a position to conclusively hold that the
jewelleries/utensils, admitted into evidence, belonged to
the appellant.
9. The appellant not preferring an appeal from the judgment
and order dated December 21, 2020, the appellant
accepted the findings returned in such judgment and
order including the portion as noted above with regard to
the ownership of the seized jewelleries/utensils.
10. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the
articles/jewelleries were seized from the premises of the
appellant, ipso facto, does not establish the right, title
and interest of the appellant over the seized
articles/jewelleries. Moreover, the appellant did not
challenge the findings returned on December 21, 2020.
11. The learned Trial Judge, therefore, correctly dismissed
the 452 Cr. P. C. application by the impugned order
dated July 15, 2021 after noticing that, the learned Trial
while disposing of the trial returned a finding with regard
to the ownership of the jewelleries/utensils.
12. We find no material irregularity in the impugned order
dated July 15, 2021 requiring reversal thereof.
13. CRA 232 of 2021 is, therefore, dismissed without any
order as to costs.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)
I agree.
(Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)
