KARTICK CHANDRA DAS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule is directed against Order No.10 dated 9.9.76 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court, Calcutta, in Case No.P.R/394 of 1976, whereby he rejected an application made by the defence Advocate for acquitting the accused under section 249, Criminal Procedure Code. A challan was submitted against the accused-petitioner under section 54A of the Calcutta Police Act (Act IV of 1866). The petitioner was found with having in his possession two main switches of British Patent make in England. When he was called upon to account for the same, he failed to render any satisfactory account. Accordingly, the challan is submitted against him. In the challan the Police officer had stated that he had his reasons to suspect that the articles found in possession of the accused were stolen properties.

(2.) It has been submitted before me that since the requirement of the section is 'reasons to believe' and not reasons to suspect, the challan is bad and accordingly the accused should not be proceeded with as the learned Magistrate had nothing else but the challan before him for proceeding against him. In this connection, the learned Advocate for the petitioner has cited the decision reported in (1) 59 C.W.N. 751 (R. N. Ghosh v. The State) at page 756. It has been held in that case that:-

(3.) In this case I find apart from the challan the articles that were sized from the accused were foreign made articles for which the accused gave no explanation. Moreover, referring to section 54A of the Calcutta Police Act I find that the wording of the section requires that if anybody is found in possession of anything which, there is reason to believe, to have been stolen or fraudulently obtained, shall, if he fails to account for such possession or act to the satisfaction of the Magistrate, be liable to fine, etc. etc. The learned Magistrate considered the challan as well as the articles that were seized by the police and he examined the accused under section 251 of the Criminal Procedure Code and was satisfied that there are reasons to believe that the articles had been obtained through fraudulent means for which the accused has failed to render any satisfactory account. Therefore, the present case is certainly distinguishable from the case cited before me and has no manner of application to this case. Moreover, it would be seen that the learned Magistrate has already recorded the plea of the accused and he has pleaded not guilty to the offence charged. At this stage I am unable to interfere in the proceedings. The Rule is, therefore discharged. Rule discharged.