- (1.) This revisional application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the petitioner, who is an accused in connection with English Bazar Police Station Case No. 477 of 2013 dated April 28, 2013 under Section 406/420/468/109 of the Indian Penal Code has assailed the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Malda, in Criminal Revision No. 22 of 2014 reserving an order dated March 06, 2014 wherein the learned Revisional Court was pleased to set aside the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malda, has passed in G.R. Case No. 1585 of 2013 corresponding to English Bazar Police Station Case No. 477 of 2013 dated April 28, 2013 under Section 406/420/468/109 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) It appears from the order dated March 06, 2014, that the First Revisional Court relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State, 2003 AIR(SC) 638 ordered that the vehicle bearing registration No.WB-61 7379 (Chassis No. 426031DSZ007676 and Engine No. 70D62562253) to be returned to the Financier/Revisionist in interim custody by furnishing proper bond.
(3.) The case of the present petitioner can be stated in brief thus : That he purchased the aforesaid vehicle from one Kajal Ghosh, who was the opposite party No. 1 in that revisional application but unfortunately even though the name of his accused figured in the said F.I.R. of that police station case. This revisionist was not given an opportunity of being heard and no notice was issued to him. Heard Mr. Tapan Dutta Gupta, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, who submits that his only grievance is that the learned Revisional Court ought to have given opportunity to the present petitioner of being heard in that criminal revisional application. It is submitted by Mr. Ayan Basu, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State by taking me to Section 401(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code that in fact this petitioner is entitled to get notice of the revisional application but at the same time he submitted that this Court being the highest Court of the State exercising the power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code can very well judge as to whether any prejudice was caused to the present petitioner for his non-inclusion in that revisional application and that whether the order passed by the said Revisional Court caused any prejudice to this petitioner or not. He further submitted by taking me to the impugned order of the First Revisional Court that the said order does not suffer from any infirmity. I also admit that notice ought to have been issued to the present petitioner in that revisional application and this Court is to judge as to whether this petitioner has suffered any prejudice vide the impugned order.;