Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ct. No. 29 Sweety Nath Ray vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 16 June, 2025
396 16.06 C.R.R. 570 of 2022
sb 2025
Ct. No. 29 Sweety Nath Ray
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Shibaji Kumar Das
Mr. Kushal Kumar ...For the Petitioner
Mr. Prasun Mukherjee ...For the Opposite Party No. 6
Mr. Priyankar Ganguly ...For the Opposite Party No. 5
Mr. Santanu Talukdar ...For the Opposite Party No. 17
Mr. Debasish Roy, Ld. PP
Mr. Anand Keshari
Mr. Akash Ganguly ...For the State
This application pertains to an order of rejection in respect
of petitioner’s prayer for return of seized currency notes dated 10th
December, 2021 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Alipore, South 24 parganas in ACGR 2027 of 2021.
The petitioner prayed for the return of the monetary amount
seized during the course of investigation in connection with Kasba
Police Station case no. 141 of 2021 dated 24.5.2021 under Sections
170/364A/386/120B/34 of the IPC, which was allegedly paid by the
petitioner as a ransom amount for the release of her husband
namely, Ajit Kumar Ray from the unlawful custody of the accused
persons/opposite party nos. 2 to 17 herein.
Learned Trial court upon hearing the parties, were pleased
to call for a report from the Investigating agency. The investigating
officer submitted a report on 19.7.2021, wherein he stated that from
the point of view of investigating agency, they have no objection if the
seized ransom amount i.e. physical currency of Rs. 14,92,500/- be
returned to the petitioner.
Learned court below while passed the impugned order,
considered the said report but he came to a finding that a dispute
2
has cropped up over the seized currency notes, which can only be
determined after conclusion of trial because the accused
persons/opposite party nos. 2 to 17 herein have also laid a claim to
a portion of the seized currency notes alleging that such notes were
not part of the alleged ransom amount and they have also made
some allegations as to the mode and manner of the seizure. The
court below further held that there is also question of identification
of the seized currency notes at the time of trial which has assumed
even greater significance in view of the counter claim raised with
respect to the same by some of the accused persons and as such, the
court below refused to return the seized ransom amount to the
petitioner herein.
Being aggrieved by the said order of rejection, Mr. Das,
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if it is lying in the
police Malkhana at the Police Station for an indefinite period, the
said huge amount of currency notes likely to be damaged, destroyed
or lost. Moreover, no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping it in
the Malkhana of Police Station for an indefinite period because
nobody knows when the trial would be concluded. He further
submits that the learned Magistrate despite expressly recording in
the impugned order that the investigating officer did not raise any
objection in returning the seized ransom amount, unnecessarily
refused to return the same in favour of the petitioner. In fact, the
court below erroneously considered the objection of the accused
persons and erroneously held that there is “dispute” on the ground
of the prayer made by some of the accused persons/opposite parties
herein opposing and claiming the seized ransom amount. In fact,
learned Magistrate failed to consider the spirit of Section 451 of the
3
Code of Criminal Procedure, which empowered him to pass an
appropriate order for proper custody of the property pending inquiry
and trial.
He further submits that the learned Magistrate ought to
have considered the fact that the investigation in connection with the
instant case is over and the ransom amount seized from the accused
persons/opposite parties herein have been recorded in the respective
seizure list enumerated in the charge-sheet, filed in connection with
the instant case. Accordingly, the petitioner has prayed for setting
aside the order impugned and prayed for return of the ransom
amount to the custody of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that they
have no objection if the said ransom amount is returned to the
petitioner herein subject to the execution of necessary bond and also
subject to the condition that the entire physical currency notes i.e.
cash money of Rs. 14,92,500/- be kept in his safe custody and be
produced before the court as and when he will be asked to produce
by the court.
Learned counsel for the State also submits that the prayer
may be allowed in favour of the petitioner subject to the execution of
bond and also on condition that he will produce the entire currency
notes physically during trial or at any subsequent stage when he
will be asked to produce for identification and for any other purpose.
It has been reiterated in various judgments that with regard
to the disposal of cash, it is of no use to keep such articles in police
custody for years till the trial is over. Needless to say that an order
passed under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is
temporary and intended to preserve the property pending trial and
4
even if custody is given to the owner, he acts as a representative of
the court. Here, the petitioner, who claimed to have paid the same
towards ransom amount, best entitled for possession of the same. As
such, court below ought to have given interim custody of such
alleged ransom amount to the petitioner, best entitled for it’s
possession on furnishing security/bond with a condition to produce
the same as and when directed by the court.
Having considered the aforesaid submissions made on
behalf of all the parties, CRR 570 of 2022 is accordingly disposed of
with a direction upon the court below to hand over the seized
physical currency notes allegedly amounting to Rs. 14,92,500/- to
the petitioner after making necessary inventory and also by making
necessary videography, which shall be kept in a pen drive and be
made part of the seizure. The petitioner will execute an indemnity
bond of Rs. 50,00,000/- that entire currency notes/physical
currency will be produced before the court as and when he will be
asked to produce the seized property physically. For this purpose,
the court below may also ask additionally for proper security from
the petitioner and the court below for this purpose may also follow
the procedure of recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, as
provided under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for,
be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
(Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J. )