KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, J. - (1.) THIS is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure assailing the order No. 1 dated 05.01.2011 passed by the Learned District and Sessions Judge, Purba Midnapur at Tamluk in Criminal Revision No. 4 of 2011 in connection with the G.R. No. 499 of 2010 pending before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldia at Purba Midnapur. The prosecution case, in short, is that the de facto complainant lodged the FIR under Section 395/397 IPC alleging that cash of Rs. 1, 70,000/- One Gold Ring, One Wrist Watch, Money Bag and Cell Phone etc. were stolen in the incident of decoity which took place on 26.05.2010 in the evening. In course of investigation one Titan Wrist Watch, the sum of Rs. 23,000/-, one Gold ring, PAN Card etc. were seized on different dates under proper Seizure List.
(2.) THE de facto complainant filed an application before the Learned Magistrate for the return of the seized articles. THE Learned Magistrate vide order dated 10.11.2010 was pleased to reject the said prayer for the return of the seized articles. Against that order a revisional application was preferred bearing Criminal Revision No.4 of 2011 which was allowed in part. THE Learned Sessions Judge was pleased to direct that the PAN Card in the name of the petitioner be returned to him after verifying the Voter Identity Card of that person and keeping the photostat copy of the card. THE Learned Sessions Judge, however, rejected the prayer for return of other seized articles. The Learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of those articles and it should be returned to him. The learned counsel for the State opposes the instant application and submits that it is a case under Section 395/397/412 IPC. It is submitted that the articles were recovered from the possession of the accused persons and the same were seized as Alamat of this case. It is contended that at the time of the trial, the seizure is required to be proved with reference to the articles and if the articles are returned, it would be very difficult to prove the case under Section 395/397/412 IPC.
(3.) THE Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred to the decision reported in 2003 C Cr. LR.(SC) 122 [Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat]. Both the learned courts below concurrently held that the seized articles were the alamat of the case and the same were required to be proved at the time of trial.;