- (1.) The aforesaid two (2) revisions are being disposed of by a common judgment as common issue of law based on similar facts arise for consideration.
(2.) By filing these two applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C. for the sake of brevity) the petitioner seeks to set aside/quash the impugned order dated 30.06.2014 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Court, Jalpaiguri in Criminal Revision No.09 of 2014 dismissing the revision preferred challenging the order dated 05.01.2013 passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri in connection with G.R. Case No.5078 of 2012 and also for setting aside/quashing the impugned orders dated 07.02.2014 and 24.02.2014 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track 1st Court, Jalpaiguri in connection with Session Case No.78 of 2013.
(3.) The factual matrix leading to the instant Revisional Applications may be set out in the following lines: The present petitioner Ashok Agarwal who is the power of attorney holder lodged a written complaint before the Inspector-in-Charge of Bhaktinagar Police Station to the effect that one of his employees namely Govinda Kamta who was carrying about 4.762 kg of gold boarded train from Sealdah Railway Station for New Jalpaiguri railway station but he was missing. On the basis of that complaint Bhaktinagar P.S. Case No.1420 of 2012 dated 17.10.2012 was registered and the case was investigated into. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against seven (7) accused persons, one of whom is a Superintendent of Customs, Bidhannagar under Sections 364/392/302/201/120B/411/34 IPC. That gold was recovered and was seized as stolen property of the case. The present petitioner prayed for return of the seized gold before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri who vide his order dated 19.11.2012 allowed such prayer on condition to furnish a bond of Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores ) and on condition not to change the nature and character of the seized gold and not to dispose of the same till further order and on further condition to produce the seized gold as and when called for at his own costs. The Learned Magistrate also directed the I.O. to take photographs and make video recording and inventory lists of the seized gold articles before handing the same over to the petitioner. Thereafter on 04.12.2012 the petitioner filed a petition before the Learned Magistrate for permission to sell the said gold. On hearing both sides and on considering the objections raised by the Investigating Officer, the Learned Magistrate rejected the prayer for permission to sell the gold by passing the impugned order dated 05.01.2013. Being dissatisfied with such order, the petitioner preferred a Revision being Criminal Revision No.09 of 2009 before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Court, Jalpaiguri who by passing the impugned order dated 30.06.2014 dismissed the revision. He observed that the impugned order passed by the Learned Magistrate does not suffer from any illegality nor it has caused any miscarriage of justice and he, therefore, found no reasons to interfere. By the impugned orders dated 07.02.2014 and 24.02.2014 the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track 1st Court, Jalpaiguri directed the present petitioner to produce the seized gold and golden materials which was taken back by him by executing the bond of Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores) at his own risk and to depose in the case. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner has now approached this Court with the instant revisional applications.;