BIJOY YADAV Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the instant criminal revisional application the petitioner prays for quashing of the charge-sheet relating to an offence punishable under Section 33 A of the Calcutta Suburban Police act, 1966 in connection with the U. R. No. 31/06, now pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore arising out of Alipore Police Station (Sec. VI)Part II Case No. 2 dated June 1, 2006 and the order of taking cognizance of commission of such offence in connection therewith.

(2.) THE background of this case is that on June 1, 2006 at about 4. 00 p. M. in the afternoon, while the complainant, who happened to be a Sub-Inspector attached to the Alipore Police Station, was on round move with the force, found the petitioners passing through the Diamond Harbour Road with copper cable, two spades, two gaieties, two knifes and one hammer in their possessions. It is further alleged on being intercepted by the police as they could not give any satisfactory explanation or produced any valid document in support of such possession, the police arrested them and seized the said articles. Thereafter a suo motu First Information report was lodged with the alipore Police Station by the said police officer which gave rise to the Alipore police Station (Sec. VI) Part II Case No. 2 dated june 1, 2006 under Section 379/114 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 41 of the Code of Criminal procedure. However, after completion of investigation police finally submitted charge-sheet under Section 33 A of the Calcutta Suburban Police Act, 1966 against the petitioners.

(3.) MR. Rajdeep Mazumdar, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted before this Court that the present petitioners are employed by M/s. Prabir Enterprise, an authorized contractor of BSNL for carrying out site works. He further submitted that during investigation, the investigating Officer of this case also informed the Divisional Engineer, Alipore telephone Exchange about such recovery and requested him to make necessary complaint in this regard but inspite of receipt of such notice no allegation has been made by the BSNL authority alleging the same are stolen articles. Mr. Mazumdar further submitted from perusal of the charge-sheet it would appear that there is no evidentiary materials collected by the police during investigation, to prima facie establish that articles seized from the possession of the petitioners are stolen articles. Mr. Mazumdar relying on a decision reported in (1976)1 Cal LJ 213 in the case of Tapan Kumar Ghosal v. State of West Bengal and further submitted that in view of the fact the offence punishable for which charge-sheet hasbeen submitted, being a non-cognizable offence and there being no compliance with the provisions of Section 155 of the Code, the order of taking cognizance became wholly illegal and invalid.