IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] ******** PRESENT: HON’BLE JUSTICE RAI CHATTOPADHYAY CRR/61/2025 Smti. K. Chitra ... Petitioner Versus The State ... Respondent For the petitioner : Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar For the respondent : Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar Heard on : 20.11.2025 Judgment on : 20.11.2025 RAI CHATTOPADHYAY, J. 1. An order of the learned Sessions Judge, dated November 10, 2025, is under challenge in this case filed by the petitioner under section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita [BNSS], 2023. 2. The matter relates to release of the confiscated firecrackers owned by the accused/petitioner, which has been seized by police in connection with the criminal case initiated against the petitioner. Allegedly, the petitioner stored firecrackers in excess quantity than permissible at his residence. Hence a FIR has been registered against him under 2 section 9(B) of the Explosives Act, 1884, being PahalGaon Police Station Case No.178 of 2016 dated 19.10.2016. 3. With regard to the question of release of the seized articles the Chief Judicial Magistrate In-Charge, South Andaman at Port Blair, has passed an order dated October 17, 2025, in G.R.Case No.562 of 2025, releasing the permissible quantity of firecrackers to the tune of 1501.80 KG, to the present petitioner, after making a detailed inventory on which the petitioner should sign. 4. Against the said order of the CJM incharge, the petitioner moved before the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No.16 of 2025. The order of the learned Sessions Judge passed in the said case dated November 10, 2025 is assailed in this revision. Learned Sessions Judge has directed in the same that entire quantity of the seized article may be released in favour of the petitioner subject to the condition that he should produce the same in the Court as and when called for. 5. Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that though the order of the CJM incharge dated October 17, 2025, has not been challenged ever, learned Sessions Judge has erroneously modified the same by directing that the petitioner should produce the permissible 3 quantity of articles to the tune of 1501.80 KGs, as and when called for by the Court. He says that the petitioner is the legitimate owner of the firecrackers to the tune of 6500 KGs, for which he holds the valid licence. He challenges the very initiation of the criminal case against his client, as mentioned above. 6. Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar has submitted further that rest 1989.80 KGs of firecrackers, now in custody of police are basically subject to natural decay with passing of time. He has referred to the Supreme Court judgement in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai – v – State of Gujarat reported at (2002) 9 SCC 283, in support of his submission that storage of confiscated articles in police custody indefinitely is not an acceptable procedure under the law. He has submitted further that in view of the impugned order it is apparent and clear that regarding release of the seized articles beyond the quantity as was earlier allowed by the CJM incharge, the Sessions Judge has allowed the prayer of the petitioner. He submits that having allowed release of the entire seized articles the Court could not have imposed a condition as regards a decaying material like firecracker and the petitioner who is a valid license holder of the said articles which are meant for sale, should not have been restrained to sale the same. According to the learned advocate, 4 the condition imposed by the Session Court are not only impractical but also unreasonable and affecting petitioners rights under the license only adversely. He seeks setting aside of the order of the Sessions Judge dated November 10, 2025 in Criminal Revision No.16 of 2025 and release of the entire amount of firecrackers seized by police. 7. Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar, learned Public Prosecutor has raised strong objection to such contentions and prayer of the petitioner. According to him, the petitioner’s challenge to the initiation of the criminal proceeding is only motivated and baseless. He says that the petitioner has been granted two separate licenses to procure firecrackers. By virtue of those two separate licenses, the petitioner was granted permission to procure some amount of firecrackers for sale and rest of the same was to be kept in the godown. That, the petitioner was found to have stored such quantity of firecrackers, which is in excess of the permissible quantity and thereby he has not only violated the terms of license but also the provision of law for which a specific criminal case has been lodged against the petitioner. The learned Public Prosecutor has further argued that production of the seized articles are invariably necessary at the time of trial for the sake of fair trial. He has supported the 5 order of the learned Sessions Judge, stating the same to be just, reasonable and proper to serve the interest of justice. He has sought for dismissal of the instant case. 8. It is noted that the seizure of articles and lodging of the specific police case against the petitioner, are the incidents happened back in the year 2016. For all these years, the seized articles were in custody of the investigating authority, though no chemical examination thereof has yet been done by the same. So far as the fact that the petitioner holds valid license for the firecrackers seized from him back in the year 2016, stands uncontroverted in this case. There is also no doubt about the fact that the seized materials are subject to natural decay with the passage of time. 9. Pursuant to the orders of the court before, the entire seized materials have been divided into 2 parts; one to the tune of 1501.80 KGs to be the permissible quantity which the petitioner is eligible to hold; the other is to the tune of 1989.80 KGs which has been termed as the excess quantity of the firecrackers unauthorisedly held by the petitioner. So far as the permissible quantity of the seized article is concerned, the CJM incharge has released the same with the only condition that inventory should be made, and the petitioner should sign 6 thereon. This portion of the order, though has never been challenged, has been interfered into and turned down by the learned Sessions Judge, in his order dated November 10, 2025. This amounts to an unwarranted and baseless exercise by the learned Sessions Judge particularly in view of the fact that the same is such amount of firecrackers which the petitioner is permitted to hold and also that the same shall be inventoried and recorded. 10. As regards, the other portion of the seized articles said to be held by the petitioner in excess of the permissible quantity, the Sessions Judge has directed to prepare inventory for the same containing signature of the petitioner/owner. The article like firecrackers are decay prone. The law as regards need for expeditious release of the decay prone articles to prevent any waste, is now well settled. The articles are kept in custody beyond a reasonable period of time, that too without any chemical examination having been done so far. 11. For all reasons as stated above the Court finds no justifiable grounds not to release the seized firecrackers to its original owner/ the petitioner herein to the tune of 1989.80 Kgs. over and above the amount of firecrackers, scheduled to be 7 released in favour of the petitioner by virtue of the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (In charge) dated October 17, 2025. 12. The order of the learned Sessions Judge dated November 10, 2025 as impugned in this case is hereby set aside to the extent of imposition of conditions for production of articles as and when called for, being in defiance of the settled law as discussed above. 13. It is directed that the entire seized articles be released in favour of the owner/present petitioner, after making a exhaustive inventory of the same and securing sample from each type of firecrackers, as seized. The petitioner herein is directed to sign on the inventory and sample. 14. With the direction as above, the present Criminal Revision being No. CRR/61/2025 is allowed and disposed of. 15. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, may be supplied to the parties upon compliance of usual formalities. (RAI CHATTOPADHYAY, J.)