- (1.) 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.
(2.) 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 2 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 instalments 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.
(3.) 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.;