Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010126492024 2025:GAU-AS:10067 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./735/2024 AJIJUR RAHMAN @ AZIZUR RAHMAN S/O SHAHAJAMAL SHEIKH, R/O VILL- KASWATIKA, P.S.-BIJNI, DIST- CHIRANG (ASSAM) VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM 2:SUKUMAR NATH LT. BOJONI KANTA NATH A.S.I. (P) OF CHAPOR P.S. DIST- DHUBRI ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A AHMED, MR A AHMED,U U KHAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 01.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 2. The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. aggrieved by Page No.# 2/4 the order dated 03.04.2024 passed by the learned JMFC, Bilasipara, whereby the petitioner herein is seeking interim custody of 60 bags of supportedly dry areca nuts which were seized in connection with Chapar Police Station Case No. 255/2023, registered under Section 420/406/379/411/34 of IPC. 3. The petitioner claims to be the legitimate owner of the said materials. The investigating authority had seized those materials with a suspicion that these are actually Burmese nuts which were illegally imported from Myanmar without proper documentation. While adjudicating the zimma petition, the learned JMFC, Bilasipara called for a report from the investigating officer and relying upon the said report, rejected the prayer of the petitioner before the learned court below seeking interim custody of the said areca nuts. The police report before the learned court below vide dated 12.02.2024 has been annexed with the petition as Annexure-V. The investigating officer has stated in his report vide dated 12.02.2024 that the seized materials are required for further investigation and that expert opinion is not yet received from the Food Safety Department, Dhubri. 4. It is further stated that the documents submitted by the petitioner namely, Ajijur Rahman @ Azizur Rahman regarding ownership remain to be verified. Another police report dated 04.03.2024 stated that the 60 bags of aforesaid nuts have been kept in PS Malkhana. The investigation officer has objected on the ground of non receiving the expert opinion report from the Food Safety Department and also contending that the same are required for further investigation. 5. Again in a report dated 20.03.2024, the investigating officer contended that the seized nuts were found to be transported to West Bengal during investigation but the documents of the petitioner indicated that the areca nuts Page No.# 3/4 were transported to Gauripur Alomganj. 6. The investigating officer had contended that the ownership of the documents is not clear at that stage. Based on the police report, the learned JMFC, Bilasipara rejected the prayer for interim custody. The learned JMFC, Bilasipara held, with regard to the contention of the petitioner before that court about the seized articles being made for industrial purposes that the said contention is not supported by the documentation and there is nothing on record to ascertain that this is not for human consumption and thereby will not constitute threat to public health. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken the Court through the documents which are annexed to the petition and assailing the order of the learned JMFC, Bilasipara, it is submitted that the learned trial court erred in rejecting the interim custody petition. 8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the prosecution does not have the benefit of the present status of the investigation, that can be revealed by the case diary and also what is the nature of these materials without some expert opinion. He has supported the impugned order by stating that there is no infirmity in the same. 9. I have perused the materials and considered the rival submissions. In the three police reports, the main contentions of the investigating officer were that the ownership of documents was not clear; that these materials are required for further investigation; some discrepancy with regard to the direction of the transport; non receipt of the expert opinion from the Food Safety Department; 10. Upon perusing the impugned judgment and order, I opined that from the factual situation that prevailed at the time of passing of the impugned order, taking into account the police report _ it cannot be said that the learned Page No.# 4/4 Magistrate committed any error of law or facts by rejecting the prayer of interim custody at that stage. Therefore, in this criminal petition, I do not find sufficient grounds to set aside the said order. 11. However, since considerable time has already been elapsed since passing of the impugned order, the petitioner would be at liberty to move a fresh interim custody application before the learned trial court where upon an up-to-date report can be procured from the police by the learned court to ascertain the factual position that exists today. 12. Upon procuring such up-to-date materials, the learned JMFC, Bilasipara can then pass necessary order on any such petition; needless to say, in accordance with the relevant laws. Pursuant to any such proceeding preferred by the petitioner, the petitioner is also at liberty to invoke the provision of Clause 15 of the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by the Additional DGP, CID, Assam. In the meantime, the investigating officer is hereby directed to ensure that the seized materials are kept in proper custody. 13. Upon the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is also directed that in any such new zimma petition, to endeavour may be made to procure police report expeditiously so that the interim custody can be adjudicated, without much delay. 14. The criminal revision petition stands dismissed and disposed of on the aforesaid terms. JUDGE Comparing Assistant