Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 461 (CAL)

Ananda Mondal v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2012-05-16

PRASENJIT MANDAL

body2012
Judgment :- Prasenjit Mandal, J. This application is at the instance of an accused person and is directed against the Order dated April 21, 2011 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kalyani, Nadia in G.R. Case No.1498 of 2010 thereby directing return of the seized vehicle to Tapas Majumder and consequently refusing the prayer of the petitioner for return of the vehicle in his favour. The petitioner is an accused person in the case under reference under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that he had taken the vehicle in question while it was plying with loaded tea to reach its destination. The case is pending and the investigation is being done. The said vehicle in question was seized and it was directed that the vehicle should be returned to Tapas Majumdar and not to the petitioner. Being aggrieved by such order, this application has been preferred. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials-on-record, I find that the petitioner has contended that an agreement was held between him and Tapas Majumdar for sale of the vehicle in question and accordingly, he paid Rs.2,00,000/- to Tapas Majumdar and then to the creditor-bank to the tune of Rs.8,50,120/- by installments on behalf of the Tapas Majumdar as he (Tapas) took the vehicle in question on hire purchase agreement. Since, some amount was till due, the said vehicle was seized and it was handed over to the registered owner Tapas Majumdar on payment. As per allegation, the said vehicle was seized by the petitioner while it was moving with tea to reach its destination and so, the said G.R. case is pending. As per papers filed in the said case and the report of the concerned I.O., the vehicle in question still stands in the name of Tapas Majumdar though the petitioner paid certain amount to the registered owner and the installments due from Tapas Majumdar to the creditor for purchase. Tapas Majumdar signed on certain papers for transfer of the vehicle in question in favour of the petitioner, but, as per materials-on-record, the vehicle still stands in the name of Tapas Majumdar and so, the I.O. has submitted the report accordingly for release of the vehicle in favour of Tapas Majumdar. Tapas Majumdar signed on certain papers for transfer of the vehicle in question in favour of the petitioner, but, as per materials-on-record, the vehicle still stands in the name of Tapas Majumdar and so, the I.O. has submitted the report accordingly for release of the vehicle in favour of Tapas Majumdar. The petitioner may make certain payments to the tune of Rs.12,00,000/- and odd and if the vehicle is not transferred in his name, he has his remedies to take other recourses as per law. At present, it is found that the vehicle stands in the name of Tapas Majumdar and accordingly, the vehicle in question was handed over to Tapas Majumdar on executing a P.R. bond of Rs.80,00,000/- Mr. Pushpal Satpathi, learned Advocate for the opposite party has referred to the decision of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai V. State of Gujarat reported in 2003 C Cr LR(SC) 122 to show that when the articles are seized those are not to be kept for a long time at the Police Station and in any case not more than 15 days to 1 month and appropriate orders for disposal of the same should be passed. In this regard, the prompt action is to be taken for early disposal of the vehicle. The learned Trial Judge has done so. It may be noted herein as per Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Tapas Majumdar shall be deemed as owner of the vehicle in question and the procedure for transfer of the vehicle in question as laid down in Section 50 of the Motors Vehicle Act have not been complied with as yet. The learned Trial Judge has observed that a civil suit is pending over the matter and such civil suit may solve the disputes between the parties. Anyway, since the vehicle in question stands in the name of Tapas Majumdar as registered owner, I do not find any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order. The impugned order does not suffer from impropriety or incorrectness or without jurisdiction. This being the position, I am of the view that there is no scope of interference with the impugned order. This application is, therefore, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocate for the parties upon compliance of all formalities.