The court's decision emphasized the importance of adhering to the legal provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and following the guidelines set by the Supreme Court in similar cases.

JUDGMENT

The present revision has been preferred against an order dated 24.06.2019 passed by the learned Judge, 3rd Special Court, Purba Burdwan in Sessions Case No. 08 of 2016, arising out of Kanksa Police Station Case No. 46 dated 28.01.2016 for offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c)/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 and Sections 25/35 of the Arms Act, thereby refusing the prayer made under Section 457 of Code of Criminal Procedure for return of the seized vehicle of the petitioner.

The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner is the registered owner of an Omni bus (private use) being registration no. WB40Z2550, Model- Scorpio LX9ST, Chassis No.- MA1TA2MXND2K40971, engine no.- MXD4K 17574. The aforesaid vehicle was registered on 26.11.2013 by the Motor Vehicle Department of Government of West Bengal and said registration is valid up to 24.11.2028.

One Prabir Kumar Ghosh, S.I. of Kanksa Police Station lodged a complaint being Kanksa Police Station Case No. 46 dated 28.01.2016 for offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(c)/29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 and Sections 25/35 of the Arms Act against 10 persons.

The learned Judge, 3rd Special Court, Purba Burdwan was pleased to pass an order of acquittal on 20.04.2017 in the favour of the petitioner and 11 others from the charge under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c)/29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and under Sections 25/35 of the Arms Act.

The petitioner, being the registered owner of the Scorpio vehicle being registration no. WB40Z 2550, Model-Scorpio LX9ST, Chassis No.- MA1TA2MXND2K40971, Engine No.- MXD4K 17574, made an application under Section 457 of Code of Criminal Procedure for return of the aforesaid seized vehicle before the learned Judge, 3rd Special Court, Purba Burdwan on 29.11.2018.

The application was heard on 24.06.2019 and the learned Judge, 3rd Special Court, Purba Burdwan did not find any scope to entertain the application for return of the seized vehicle made by the petitioner and was pleased to reject the same.

It is submitted that the learned Trial Court rejected the same without any cogent justifiable reason.

That although the petitioner was acquitted from the Kanksa Police Station Case No. 46 dated 28.01.2016 by a competent Court of law but still the learned Judge failed to dispose of the application of the petitioner made under Section 457 of Code of Criminal Procedure, in accordance with law.

Mr. Amajit Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Judge passed an order in an erroneous manner which is contrary to the statute.

The order passed by the Trial Court against your petitioner is bad in law and is liable to be set aside.

Mr. Md. Anwar Hossain, learned counsel for the State is present.

The order dated 24.06.2019 in Special Case 08/2016 under revision is as follows:-

Special Case No. 08/2016

Order No.44

24.06.2019

The petition dated 29.11.2018 filed by the petitioner Santosh Chowdhury, claimed to be the owner of seized Scorpio car, bearing registration number W.B.40Z/2550, praying for return of the said vehicle in his favour, is taken up for further hearing and order.

Heard Both sides.

Having heard the submissions of Ld. Advocate for the petitioner and Ld. P.P.-in-Charge for the prosecution and on perusal of the materials on record including the judgment in connection with this case delivered on 20.04.2017, admittedly it appears that the present petitioner Santosh Chowdhury was an accused in connection with this case. Although he has been acquitted from this case by the said judgment but this court, in its said judgment, already held that “the seized contraband items be destroyed forthwith, if not already done, in accordance with law, the Scorpio vehicle bearing registration number W.B. 40Z/2550 shall vest with the State, the other Alamats, if any, shall be dealt with in accordance with law, after the period of expiry of appeal.”