PRODIP KUMAR DAS Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As shall appear from my earlier orders, this is a case where the writ petitioner, who does not have an excise licence, instituted the writ petition seeking independent investigation of certain criminal cases, one of which was initiated by him against the non-State respondents No. 7 and 8 who do have such licence to run a bar (on shop) and a restaurant. This is important since the writ petitioner has made out a case that it financed or invested substantially in the business of the said respondents no. 7 and 8, and under a deed of lease has actually been running and conducting the business of a bar-cum-restaurant at Siliguri, and then due to a dispute, the respondent No. 7 forced the writ petitioner to close the business on false pretences but thereafter, on finding that the respondents no.7 and 8 were still running the business, he filed a complaint for cheating and criminal conspiracy, which was being investigated by the police officers of the Hare Street Police Station in Kolkata. A case was started against the writ petitioner by the respondent No. 7 before the jurisdictional police station at Pradhannagar in Siliguri. During the search and seizure operations pursuant to the first information registered on the complaint of the writ petitioner, several articles were duly seized by the police with the help of the police officers of the Pradhannagar police station. The seized articles being voluminous in nature, were kept at the spot in a room on the 3rd floor of the Hotel concerned, but under lock and key with the key given to the Manger of the said bar-cum-restaurant, under lawful zimmanama. A direction was given to the competent authority to ensure the safety and security of the goods concerned subject to further orders of the competent court. Apparently, thereafter, the writ petitioner obtained an order from the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata directing the investigating officer to unlock/hand over the keys of the said locked premises to the writ petitioner upon executing a bond for Rs. 10 lakhs. There were other conditions.

(2.) Apparently, the writ petitioner, despite complying with the conditions in the order applicable to him, did not get the keys and could only get the keys on October 10, 2017, and that too after "much persuasion" of the investigating agency. On such day, the Manager having zimma, was not traceable and therefore the "locked and sealed" room was forced open only to find that the so called sealed room on the 3rd floor had a back door which was open. The writ petitioner apparently discovered that many of the articles which had been seized including the Central Processing Unit according to the seizure list, were missing and in case of the said CPU, had been replaced with an empty cabinet. The data in the hard drive of the CPU, naturally, is contended by the writ petitioner to have valuable evidence of his allegations.

(3.) In this situation I had directed that two reports be filed, one by the Secretary, Department of Home (Police) and one by the Inspector-in-Charge of the concerned Pradhannagar police station.