- (1.) Order dated 15th September, 2014 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata in case no. C -21578 of 2014 under Sections 120B/406/420/421/418 of the Indian Penal Code has been assailed. The petitioner is a borrower of the opposite party no. 2/Bank. In connection with the loan advanced to the petitioner, shop room and stock in trade of the petitioner were pledged as 'secured asset' to the Bank. It is alleged that the petitioner had defaulted in repaying the loan. Accordingly the opposite party no. 2/Bank issued notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as 'Act of 2002') and has taken symbolic possession of the shop room. The petitioner filed an application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal with regard to the said matter. Simultaneously the opposite party no. 2 has instituted the instant criminal proceeding against the petitioner. In connection with the investigation of the case, seizure has been effected with regard to the stock in trade of the petitioner which consists of various wearing apparels of substantial value. Prayer was made on behalf of the petitioner for return of the seized articles. By the impugned order that prayer was turned down.
(2.) Mr . Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the seized articles are of substantial value and belong to the petitioner. He further submits that the order was passed behind his back without giving an opportunity of hearing to him.
(3.) Mr . Ganguly, appearing for the Opposite Party no. 2/Bank submits that the stock in trade was part of the 'secured assets' pledged to the Bank against the loan advanced to the petitioner. The Bank is entitled to take possession of the assets and accordingly, the seized stock was given to the custody of the Bank. He further submits that the opposite party no. 2/ Bank has made prayer for sale of the said stock before the learned Magistrate. I have considered the submissions of the parties. I find that the seized articles were the stock in trade of the petitioner which were pledged to the Bank as 'secured assets' under the Act of 2002. Accordingly I am of the opinion that there was no illegality in handing over the seized stock in trade to the custody of the opposite party/ Bank. Faced with such situation, Mr. Ghosh submits that the seized goods in the nature of fashionable ladies' wear and other dresses which need to be disposed of promptly in order to fetch the maximum possible price. I find that such application has already been made on behalf of the Bank before the learned Magistrate. Accordingly, I dispose of the petition directing the Magistrate to dispose of the application for sale of the seized articles after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties within seven days from the date of communication of this order. It is made clear that in the event the learned Magistrate permits sale of the seized articles in accordance with law, all efforts shall be made to ensure that the stock is sold at the highest available price.;