STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. GOPAL MALLICK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order dated 9.6.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Durgapur cum - learned Special Judge (under Electricity Act, 2003) in Special (Electricity) Case No. 170 of 2013, has been assailed on behalf of the State. By the said order the learned Judge directed that the seized TATA Indigo ECS car bearing registration mark WB -42S -5126 be placed before the Service Centre of B. D. Motors at Muchipara, Durgapur and to effect repairs therein and to bring back the vehicle in repaired and running condition before the court on 16.6.2014. Entire expenditure for repairing the car to proper and running condition was also directed to be borne by the Investigating Officer of the case.

(2.) The facts of the case are to the effect that the vehicle was seized by the police on 30.8.2013 in the course of investigation of New Town Police Station Case No. 157/2013 dated 13.8.2013 under section 136 of the Electricity Act. In the seizure list the vehicle was described as follows "One TATA Indigo ECS four wheeler white colour without registration number, Engine number and Chassis number illegible". One Gopal Mallick, the opposite party herein, claiming to be owner of the seized vehicle having purchased the same from M/s. B. D. Motors, made a prayer for return of the said vehicle. Report was called for from the Officer -in -Charge of the Police Station. Such report was delayed on one pretext or the other. By order dated 1.3.2014 the learned Judge directed the Investigating Officer to find out the authorised owner of the vehicle and examine the records of the Regional Transport Authority as early as possible. As no steps were taken, on 7.3.2014 the learned Judge directed the A. D. C. P., Asansol - Durgapur Police Commissionerate, to enquire into the ownership of the vehicle. On 1.4.2014, report was submitted by the superior officer along with forensic report of the vehicle from the Director of F. S. L. Forensic Report, inter alia, established the chassis number of the vehicle supporting the contention of the opposite party that he is the owner of the said vehicle. On 5.5.2014 the Investigating Officer was directed to bring the vehicle to court campus and I. C. of Bidhan Nagar Police Station was directed to submit inspection report of the concerned vehicle from B. D. Motors, that is, the firm, from which the opposite party had purchased the vehicle. In spite of such direction, the vehicle was not produced on 19.5.2014. On 9.6.2014, the vehicle was produced but no report was filed. On the selfsame date, by the impugned order, the learned Judge directed the vehicle to be placed before the Service Centre of M/s B. D. Motors for repairing and further directed that the expenses for the said repairing work would be borne by the concerned Investigating Officer.

(3.) It appears from a perusal of the impugned order dated 9.6.2014 that the opposite party had filed an affidavit after taking inspection of the vehicle that parts of the vehicle, namely, music system, C. D. machine box, stephni were missing, left side wheel of the vehicle had been replaced, central lock was in broken condition, head light and indicator system were completely broken, looking glass was also broken, fuel tanker was also found in broken condition, speaker box affixed in the dicky was also found to be broken. It was apprehended that A. C. inside the vehicle had also been removed.