Back
2014 Supreme(Cal) 742
High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
SAMAPTI CHATTERJEE, J.
Baban Upadhyay
Versus
The State of West Bengal
C.R.R.No. 2979 of 2014 (Appellate Side)
Decided on: 19-12-2014
For the Appellant:Arabinda Chatterjee, Learned Senior Counsel, Subir Ganguly, Kakali Dutta, Learned Advocates.
For the Respondent:Manjit Singh, Learned Public Prosecutor, Amartya Ghosh, Learned Advocate.
The Magistrate's failure to exercise the powers under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. resulted in the denial of the petitioner's right to the release of the seized coal, and the prolonged retention of seized articles at the police station is not justified.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTIONS 451 & 457 - INTERPRETATION - SEIZED PROPERTY - CUSTODY AND DISPOSAL - COAL SEIZED BY POLICE - ORDER FOR RELEASE - POWER OF MAGISTRATE - EXERCISE - NECESSITY - DELAY IN DISPOSAL - AVOIDANCE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an authorized agent of Associate Cement Company Ltd., Damodar Cement Works, lifted coal from M/s Eastern Coalfields Ltd. based on a "Sale Order" and relevant documents. However, the police seized the coal-laden vehicles alleging theft. The petitioner's application for release of the seized coal was rejected by the Magistrate. The petitioner challenged this order in the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Magistrate failed to exercise the powers conferred under Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which resulted in the denial of the petitioner's right to the necessary order for the release of the seized coal. The Court emphasized the importance of avoiding indefinite retention of seized articles at the police station.
Issues: 1. Whether the Magistrate erred in rejecting the petitioner's application for release of the seized coal without exercising the powers under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C.? 2. Whether the prolonged retention of seized articles at the police station is justified?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court relied on the provisions of Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C., which empower the Magistrate to make appropriate orders for the custody and disposal of property seized during an inquiry or trial. The Court held that the Magistrate failed to exercise these powers, resulting in the denial of the petitioner's right to the release of the seized coal. 2. The Court emphasized the need to avoid keeping seized articles at the police station for an indefinite period, as it serves no useful purpose.
Final Decision: The High Court set aside the impugned order of the Magistrate and directed the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders for the release of the seized coal upon securing an appropriate bond, guarantee, and security from the petitioner, who was the authorized agent of the owner of the coal.
Samapti Chatterjee, J.
1. The petitioner filed the instant application praying for setting aside the Order dated 28th August, 2014 passed by the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Asansol, District-Burdwan in G.R. Case No.1192 of 2014 arising out of Kulti Police Station Case No.149 of 2014 dated 14th May, 2014 under Sections 379/411/413/414/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 30 (II) of the CMN Act.
2. Mr. Arabinda Chatterjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. Subir Ganguly, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that M/s Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vide Order No.20140302363 dated 1st April, 2014 issued a “Sale Order” in favour of the Associate Cement Company Ltd, Damodar Cement Works (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Company’) having its office at Madhujunda, P.O-Sunuri, District-Purulia for lifting 192 MT of coal. The said “Sale Order” was issued on 1st April, 2014.
After issuance of “Sale Order” the said company duly deposited a sum of Rs.51427.66 and Rs.51016.65 being the sale price of 19.93 MT of coal including RE Cess to M/s Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Upon receipt of the said amount M/s Eastern Coalfields Ltd. issued loading advice, road challan-cum-coal bill and central excise dispatch advice etc in favour of the ‘said company’. It was also subsequently mentioned in the said loading advice that vehicles bearing No. WB-53A/5070 and WB-37C/1566 were authorised to lift the coal on behalf of the ‘said company’.
3. Mr. Chatterjee further submitted that in the “Sale Order” dated 1st April, 2014 it was categorically indicated that the two vehicles mentioned above were allowed to lift 10 MT and 9.930 MT coal respectively within 3rd April, 2014 to 22nd May, 2014.
4. Mr. Chatterjee further submitted that Baban Upadhyay the petitioner herein being the authorised agent of the ‘said Company’ lifted/loaded the coal from M/s Eastern Coalfields Ltd on behalf of the ‘said Company’.
5. Mr. Chatterjee further pointed out that it was clearly mentioned in the authorised letter of the petitioner that the petitioner has to lift the coal from the said collieries in terms of the “Sale Order” and to deliver the same to the ‘said Company’.
6. Mr. Chatterjee further contended that the petitioner being the authorised agent engaged the above mentioned two vehicles for lifting coal from the premises of the said collieries. All on a sudden on 15th May, 2014 those two vehicles loaded with coal were seized by the police, on the basis of a First Information Report dated 14th May, 2014 arising out of a written complaint dated 14th May, 2014 alleging that the said coals were stolen from the collieries and one Kulti Police Station Case No.149 dated 14th May, 2014 under Sections 379/411/413/414/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code was initiated. The drivers of the said vehicles were arrested and they were subsequently released on bail on 17th May, 2014 granted by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Asansol, Dist-Burdwan on certain conditions.
7. Mr. Chatterjee further submitted that upon the prayer for release of the seized trucks bearing Nos.WB-37C/1566 and WB-53A/5070 both trucks were also released by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Asansol, Dist-Burdwan after being satisfied regarding ownership of those vehicles.
8. Mr. Chatterjee further vehemently urged that the papers relating to the loading of the coal were also duly produced before the Investigating Officer but unfortunately the Investigating Officer in his report wrongly mentioned that no papers regarding loading of coals were produced before him.
9. Mr. Chatterjee further vehemently argued that all papers were submitted before the learned Magistrate on 13th June, 2014 and 17th June, 2014 after preparing Firisti. The learned Court below however after accepting the report of Investigating Officer only released those two trucks but did not pass any order to release seized coal.
10. Mr. Chatterjee further contended that on 18th Ju
