Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1285 (GAU)

Idrish Ali v. State of Assam

2019-11-26

HITESH KUMAR SARMA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Hitesh Kumar Sarma, J. This is an application filed under Sections 397/401 Cr.PC read with Section 482 Cr.PC, challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the order, dated 15.3.2011, passed in Case No. C.M. Case No. 45/2010, by the learned Sessions Judge, Goalpara. 2. The fact of the case is that, vide the order dated 20.9.2010, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Goalpara, disposed of the vehicle seized in connection with the Goalpara PS Case No. 45/2010 putting the same in the custody of Abdur Razzak Mollah, accused in the said case. The said order was subjected to challenge before the learned Sessions Judge in the aforesaid C.M. Case No. 45/2010. The learned Sessions Judge, vide the impugned judgment reversed the order giving custody of the Alto LXI Car bearing Reg. No. AS-01/AN-0516 (Chasis No. MA3EYD81S01569857, Engine No. F8DN4342961) to the respondent No. 2. 3. I have perused the entire records including the impugned judgment as well as the order of the learned Chief Judicial magistrate, referred to above. I have also heard Ms. S.H. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, state respondent No. 1. Since none appears for the petitioner, learned counsel, Ms. M. Barman, has been appointed amicus curiae. Respondent No. 2 is represented by learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Choudhury, assisted by learned counsel Mr. U. Choudhury. 4. It deserves a mention here that while it was noticed that the petitioner is not represented by his learned counsel and the case has been pending since long requiring its expeditious disposal, this court proposed Ms. M. Barman for appointment as amicus curiae to which she agreed. Further, instead of seeking an adjournment to examine the records she has submitted that if the case is taken up at 2:00 pm, she would be able to examine the records. Accordingly, it is decided to take up the matter at 2:00 pm. I have also heard Ms. M. Barman, amicus curiae. 5. On examination of the entire materials on record, it is found that in connection with Goalpara PS Case No. 402/2010, the aforesaid Alto LXI Car bearing Reg. No. AS-01/AN-0516 (Chasis No. MA3EYD81S01569857, Engine No. F8DN4342961) was seized from the possession of the respondent No. 2. I have also heard Ms. M. Barman, amicus curiae. 5. On examination of the entire materials on record, it is found that in connection with Goalpara PS Case No. 402/2010, the aforesaid Alto LXI Car bearing Reg. No. AS-01/AN-0516 (Chasis No. MA3EYD81S01569857, Engine No. F8DN4342961) was seized from the possession of the respondent No. 2. The petitioner who was given custody of the aforesaid vehicle by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide the order dated 20.9.2010, claimed himself to be the Chief Managing Director of Amaze Entrade Pvt. Ltd. and had also claimed that the said vehicle was purchased for the aforesaid company in the name of one shareholder. The purport of such submission as well as the statement in his petition is that the vehicle belongs to the company aforesaid and was possessed by one shareholder. On the other hand, it is submitted further that although the vehicle was purchased in the name of one of the shareholders yet the vehicle belongs to the aforesaid company. Therefore, he sought custody of the vehicle on behalf of the company. 6. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, being satisfied with the claim, granted custody of the aforesaid vehicle to the present petitioner. In the revision petition preferred against that order, the learned court of Sessions Judge, granted custody of the aforesaid vehicle in favour of the respondent No. 2 holding that the said vehicle was not only seized from the possession of the respondent No. 2 but also as per registration certificate and other documents he is the registered owner thereof. The learned Sessions Judge also referred to the provisions of Section 457 Cr.PC and has indicated in his order that when the seized property is not produced before the Magistrate or in the court during enquiry or trial, the Magistrate may pass such order as it thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof and if such person cannot be ascertained, may order production of such property in the court. Interpreting the said provision, the learned Sessions Judge has found that the respondent No. 2 being the registered owner and the person from whose possession the vehicle was seized, is a person best entitled to the custody thereof. Interpreting the said provision, the learned Sessions Judge has found that the respondent No. 2 being the registered owner and the person from whose possession the vehicle was seized, is a person best entitled to the custody thereof. On the other hand, although there is a claim that the company aforesaid had purchased vehicles in the name of its shareholders necessarily does not mean that the instant vehicle was purchased by the company in the name of the respondent No. 2 in the absence of any specific proof therefor. 7. As stated above, records show that the respondent No. 2 is the registered owner and the vehicle was seized from his possession. Therefore, for the purpose of entitlement of possession, the decision of the learned Sessions Judge to reverse the order in favour of the respondent No. 2 appears to be based on facts as well as law, as indicated above. Therefore, there is no illegality and impropriety noticed in the aforesaid order necessitating interference by this court in exercise of its revisional power. 8. Learned amicus curiae, Ms. M. Barman, has fairly submitted with reference to the facts as well as law, referred to above, that the order of the learned Sessions Judge, in the aforesaid revision petition, requires no interference same being based on facts and law relevant thereto. 9. Therefore, the revision petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. 10. This court records its appreciation for the assistance rendered by learned Amicus Curiae. The learned Amicus-curiae be paid an amount of Rs. 7,500/- as remuneration.