1. Heard Mr. S.G. Ladda, learned Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. A.B. Girase, learned Public Prosecutor for the Respondent – State.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. The petitioners have challenged the Judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the Criminal Revision Application filed by the petitioners and upholding the order passed by the learned Magistrate rejecting the application filed by the petitioners u/s 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

4. The Constable of Railway Police Protection Force lodged complaint on 22/12/2015 stating that on 21/12/2015 at about 10.00 p.m. when he was on duty along with other Officers, the policemen found that the movements/behaviour of Ranjitji Gambhirji Thakur [petitioner No. 1] were suspicious and, therefore, his belongings were checked and in a bag, currency notes of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 1,000/- worth Rs. 22 Lakhs were found and on being enquired, Ranjitji Gambhirji Thakur was not able to give satisfactory answers. With these accusations, the complaint was lodged asserting that Ranjitji Gambhirji Thakur was harboring the bag after stealing it from some passenger. The concerned policemen undertook consequential exercise, drew panchanama, seized the amount and registered non-cognizable case against Ranjitji Gambhirji Thakur.

5. The petitioner No. 2 filed an application u/s 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Magistrate, Bhusawal [Railway] seeking interim custody of the property [amount of Rs. 22 Lakhs]. The petitioner No. 2 claimed that the amount belongs to him. According to the petitioner No. 2, he is a businessman, dealing as an agent in the business of cotton and betel-nuts having office at Rajkot and Surat, that the petitioner No. 1 is working under him, that the petitioner No. 1 was sent along with the amount of Rs. 22 Lakhs on 20/12/2015 to Akola for purchasing cotton, but the transaction could not take place and when the petitioner No. 1 was returning from Akola to Surat, on 22/12/2015, the amount was seized between Bhusawal and Jalgaon.

The application was opposed on behalf of the respondent on the grounds as recorded in para Nos. 4 and 5 of the Order passed by the learned Magistrate, which are as follows :

“4. Ld. A.P.P. opposed to the application on the ground that, applicant has given any appointment letter of accused. He argued that, the seized amount is huge, therefore, applicant ought to have given bank details but he did not give any bank details. He argued that the C.A. is private person and only on his certified documents whole reliance can not be placed unless and until applicant gives the account of seized cash amount.

5. I.O. opposed in his say and stated that, it was revealed during the investigation that accused obtained amount from Akola and Amravati and he was carrying that amount to Surat and it is stated that, as per contention of applicant, such seized amount was sent with accused from Gujrat and he was returning as transaction could not take place. ”

The learned Magistrate accepted the submissions made on behalf of the respondent and rejected the application filed by the petitioner No. 2.

6. The petitioner No. 2 challenged the above order in Revision Application before the Sessions Court, which is dismissed by the impugned Judgment.

7. Considering the tenor of the objections raised by the respondent to the prayer of the petitioners, it is clear that the respondent is reeling under the mis-conception that the Railway Protection Force and the police have the power and authority to seize the property if the policemen feel that the person from whom the property is seized is not able to account for it. When the matter was argued for some time on 15/12/2016, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor made submissions relying on the stand taken before the sub-ordinate Courts and based on the provisions of Sections 11, 12 and 14 of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 [hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1957'], Rule