IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J.
K.M. Shaji, S/o. Beerankutty - Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor & Ors. - Respondents
Crl. MC No. 8368 of 2022
Decided On : 10-10-2023
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a politician, sought the release of currency notes seized from his residence during an investigation into alleged disproportionate wealth accumulation.Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the explanations provided by both parties regarding the source and purpose of the seized amount. It emphasized that findings on the petitioner's explanation were prima facie and not determinative of guilt. The court highlighted that Section 451 Cr.P.C. aims to make provisional arrangements for property custody during trial. ISSUES The key issue was whether to release the seized currency notes to the petitioner under Section 451 Cr.P.C., considering allegations under anti-corruption laws.Ratio Decidendi:
The court emphasized that releasing seized property does not determine ownership rights but ensures preservation until trial completion. It cited precedents emphasizing safeguards for recovery when releasing valuable articles or currency notes. FINAL DECISION The court allowed the petition, setting aside the lower court's order and directing the release of currency notes subject to conditions including a bank guarantee.ORDER :
The challenge in this Crl.M.C. is against the Annexure-E order passed by the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode (hereinafter referred to as the Special Judge) in C.M.P.No.496/2022 in V.C.No.2/2021/SCK. As per the said order, the application submitted by the petitioner herein, the accused in the said crime, under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. to release amounts seized from his residence as part of the investigation conducted by the 2nd respondent in this case was dismissed.
2. The facts which led to the filing of this Crl. M.C are as follows:
The petitioner is a politician and was elected as a member of the Kerala Legislative Assembly in 2011 and 2016 from the Azheekode constituency. He was also the candidate for the Assembly elections conducted in the year 2021 for the very same constituency. One M.R. Harish filed a complaint before the Court of Special Judge as C.M.P.No.132/2020, alleging that the petitioner had amassed wealth disproportionate to his known and legal sources of income. The Special Judge forwarded the same to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau Special Cell, Kozhikode, for preliminary enquiry. After a preliminary inquiry, a report was submitted with a finding that he amassed wealth beyond his known sources of income by a margin of 166% during the period from 1.6.2011 to 31.10.2020. Based on the said report, the Director Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau Thiruvananthapuram accorded sanction to register a case against the petitioner, and accordingly, the aforesaid crime was registered under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 read with 13(1) (b) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment ) Act, 2018 on 11.04.2021. As part of the investigation, a search was conducted in the house situated at Ottathengumanal, Alavil, Kannur, owned by the wife of the petitioner by the name “Alliance Green Villa”. During such search, five documents, gold ornaments weighing 16.21 gm, and Indian currency notes worth Rs.47,35,500/- were seized. Out of the said amount, currency notes worth Rs.46,35,500/- was found concealed under a fully covered cot in the bedroom on the ground floor of the house. The remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was found in a cupboard in the very same bedroom. The currency notes seized were produced before the court on 15.04.2021 and were remitted to the Sub treasury as per the orders passed by the learned Special Judge. The C.M.P.No.496/2022 was filed by the petitioner seeking the release of the said currency notes under Section 451 Cr.P.C.
3. The 2nd respondent objected to the release of the said amount, raising various contentions. Ultimately, after considering the rival contentions, the learned Special Judge rejected the application submitted by the petitioner and this Crl.M.C. is filed in such circumstances.
4. Heard Sri. Babu S. Nair, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Rajesh A., the learned Special Government Pleader (Vigilance) for the State.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had properly explained the source of the amount and the purpose for which the same was kept in the house. According to him, he was a candidate for the election conducted on 6.4.2021 to the Legislative Assembly. As part of generating the funds to meet the expenses for the election, a meeting of the United Democratic Front(UDF), under whose banner the petitioner was the candidate, was convened on 16.03.2021 and decided to collect amounts from the Public. As part of the implementation of the said decision, amounts were collected, and the same was kept in the election camp office of the petitioner, functioning in the house wherein the inspection was conducted. He also produced before the learned Special Judge the receipts evidencing the collection of the said amount from the general public and also pointed out that he also included the said amount in the income tax return submitted by him pertaining to the financial year 20
Smt. Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil v. State of Mysore and Anr.
Sundarbai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat
Interim custody of seized property under S. 503 BNSS should be granted expeditiously when there is no rival claim, using bonds and photographic records to secure evidentiary value rather than keeping....
Section 132-B of Income Tax Act provides for manner in which assets seized under Section 132-A is to be dealt with.
Point of Law : Court should pass appropriate orders immediately and articles should not be kept for a long time at police station, and procedure for disposal of seized valuable articles, currency not....
Provisions under Section 457 of Code property which has been seized by police under provision of Code and has not been produced before criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, Magistrate may make s....
Seized property must be returned to the rightful owner unless justified otherwise, ensuring no deprivation without legal authority, as per Article 300A of the Constitution.
The court clarified that the provisions relating to security and attachment in cases of disproportionate assets must be strictly followed; hence, the petitions were dismissed.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.