JUDGMENT
R. Bhattacharyya, J.
1. This rule was issued in connection with an order dated 24.9.91 in Misc Case No. 253 of 1991, passed by the District Magistrate (J), South 24-Parganas, issuing a search warrant directing the officer-in-charge, Kasba Police Station to recover articles as mentioned in Schedule A and hand over the same after recovery to the opposite party No. 2.
2. The short fact of the case is that the opposite party No. 2 Smt. Rubi Das put in an application Under Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, claiming herself to be the lawful wife of one Bimal Das, since deceased and the marriage was solemnized in the year 1986, according to Hindu rites. It is pertinent to mention that a male child was born of the said wedlock. She was subjected to in human cruelties by the In-laws by the reason of her failure to bring a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from her father.
3. The husband had a Taxi bearing Registration No. WMT 4905 and after her husband’s death the said Taxi had been stolen. She is the right ful owner of the Taxi. She was threatened with physical, violence. However, to secure the possession of the Taxi, an order was made by the learned Magistrate in the manner aforesaid.
4. The petitioner-revisionists have come up in revision although they have put in a show-cause application.
5. Mr. Susanta Banerjee, the learned Advocate, for the revisionists has attacked the impugned order on the ground that there was non-application of mind by the learned Magistrate in passing the order complained of. There was no subjective satisfaction of the learned Magistrate before the issuance of the search warrant.
6. Mr. S. S. Imam, the learned Advocate, appearing for the opposite party has refuted the claim of Mr. Banerjee on the ground that a show-cause application filed by the revisionists is awaiting disposal.
7. In all fitness of things, the revisionists should vindicate their grievance before the learned Magistrate founded on the show-cause, as such, the revision is premature.
8. Having heard the respective contentions of the parties, 1 am of the view that the issuance of a search warrant is undoubtedly an important course of action. The court issuing the search warrant should take enough precaution that issuance of the search warrant should not launch the opposite party into disadvantage. The learned Magistrate before issuing the search warrant should consider the pros and cons of the application preferred by any party Under Section 94 of the Cr.P.C, as the issuance of the search warrant does not depart from the concept of “reason to believe”. The Magistrate issuing a search warrant performs a judicial act. So, he has to see that the conditions, as prescribed in. section 94 of the Cr.P.C. are satisfied and to sustain an order Under Section 94, he has been empowered to hold an enquiry by the section itself for the language employed in the body of it, “after such inquiry as he thinks necessary. The order impugned does not reflect that he had some allegation of information which the Magistrate believed that a particular place was used for deposit or sale of stolen property. Therefore, it appears to me that the search warrant was issued without application of mind. It may be, that he is not required to record his reasons for issuing the search warrant but it must qualify the prescribed conditions as embodied in the section itself. .
9. The court of revision, in the background of the nature of order being passed by the learned Magistrate is to aid the right of the revisionist in order to prevent the abuse of the process of the court. The court should not be moved by the pathos or tragedies of any party praying for issuance of search warrant. The Court should be moved by the prescribed conditions as laid-down in section 94.
Accordingly, the revision succeeds.