DEBENDRA NATH RAY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule is directed against an order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, whereby he has ordered that certain properties seized under a search warrant forwarded to him by the Presidency Magistrate, 21st Court of Bombay be sent to the Court wherefrom the warrant had emanated.

(2.) In connection with a complaint under Sections 494, 495 and 420 Indian Penal Code filed in the Court of Presidency Magistrate at Bombay by one Smt. Raksha alias Rekha Rathindra Naty Roy against her husband Dr. R.N. Roy, a search warrant was prayed for, for recovery of movables comprising gold and silver ornaments, utensils and clothes etc., from the house of Dr. R.N. Roy's father at Calcutta. In pursuance of the prayer the learned Presidency Magistrate of Bombay issued a warrant and forwarded the same to the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, for execution. The learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, on receipt of the warrant endorsed it in favour of the officcr-in-charge of the local police station and Unit officer accompanied by the brother of the complainant went to the house of Sri D.N. Roy, father of Dr. R.N. Roy and on the identification, the identifier seized a number of ornaments, utensils and clothes on preparing a search list and produced them before the Court of the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta.

(3.) Before the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate Shri D.N. Roy filed an application stating that the goods seized belonged to his wife and daughters and as such were not liable to be seized under the search warrant issued by the Bombay Court. The learned Chief Presidency Magistrate appears to have been of the view that he was not competent to decide on the question as to whether the movables have been rightly seized. As the warrant issued showed that the goods seized were to be forwarded to the issuing Court, the learned 'Chief Presidency Magistrate thought that he was not in a position even to accede to the request of the petitioner before him that he be permitted to retain the goods on condition of bis producing the same to the issuing Court. It is against this order that the petitioner moved this Court and obtained the present Rule.