The wide applicability of Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to seize any property, including immovable property, and the discretion of the court to decide on de-sealing based on the facts and circumstances of each case.

JUDGMENT :

1. These are companion revisions. In CRR No. 2117 of 2018, the petitioner no. 1/company and its director the petitioner no. 2 challenged the order dated 27.06.2018 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 5th Court, Barasat, North 24 Paraganas in ST No. 09/2018 under Sections 370, 370A(2), 34 and 120B of the Penal Code and Sections 3, 4, 5, 5A, 5B, 5C, 7 and 9 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, thereby turning down the prayer of the petitioners to revoke the seal on their restaurant cum bars. CRR No. 2299/2018 was moved on behalf of another company/petitioner challenging the same order passed by the said Learned Court in ST Case No. 09/2018, thereby also turning down the petitioner's prayer to revoke the seal on their restaurant cum bars.

2. The case of the petitioners in CRR No. 2117/2018 appears to be that the petitioner no. 1 was running restaurant-cum-bars under the name and style of 'Tiash' at Jessore Road, Kolkata and of 'Sunset' at Baguihati, Kolkata. By applications dated 11.03.2017 and 13.03.2017, the petitioners applied for renewal of excise licences for the year 2017-2018 for 'Sunset' and 'Tiash', respectively. All of a sudden on 05.04.2017 without any prior notice, the police personnel from the Bidhannagar Commissionerate arrived at the said two restaurant-cum-bars, affixed notices on the doors and sealed the doors of the two units. After a few days, the petitioners moved a writ application before this Court being WP No. 1174(W)/2018 whereupon by an order dated 18.01.2018 this Court directed the respondents to furnish the details of the cases in connection with which the said two premises were sealed. Much later, on 05.05.2018 the Detective Department, Bidhannagar Police Commissionerate made available to the petitioners a copy of the report addressed to the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat, North 24 Paraganas. It transpired from the report that one Jagjit Singh was allegedly running a business of immoral traffic and prostitution from the two restaurants, among others and Baguihati Police Case No. 1491 dated 16.02.2016 was registered on such allegations. The crux of the allegations levelled in the said First Information Report were that upon source information, police raided a flat at the Tribeni Apartment, Baguihati where a prostitution racket was being run and recovered a victim girl who disclosed that she worked in one Spice Garden Bar at VIP Road, Kaikhali owned by one Jagjit Singh and there she was being exploited for sometime by a co-accused Raju Ghosh. Some other persons and the said Raju Ghosh were also arrested from the spot. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted. Thereafter the petitioners filed an application before the Learned Court below praying for revoking of the seal on their restaurant- cum-bars namely, 'Tiash' and 'Sunset'. Such prayer was turned down by the Learned Trial Court.

3. In CRR No. 2299/2018, the main contentions of the petitioner appears to be that the petitioner was running restaurant cum bars under the name and style Hotel Downtown at VIP Road, Kolkata and two hotels under the name and style of Spice Garden, one at VIP road,, Kolkata and the other at Chinar Park, Kolkata. The excise licence was granted in the name of one Jagjit Singh, erstwhile director of the petitioner company for the hotel Downtown and in the name of one Gursimran Singh a present director for the hotel Spice Garden. After the said premises of Hotel Downtown at VIP Road, Kolkata and Spice Garden at VIP Road, Kolkata and at Chinar Park, Kolkata were sealed by the police, the petitioner moved a writ application being WP No. 1174(W)/2018 before this Court for a direction upon the police and the excise authorities to furnish the details of the cases in connection with which the premises were sealed. After a lapse of time, the details were given. It referred to the same case in respect of which CRR No. 2117/2018 had been filed. A charge-sheet was submitted. Subseq