1993 Supreme(Raj) 812
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Y.R.Meena, J.
Mohammad Salam @ Abdul Salam - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.C. Cri. Misc. Petition No. 1166 of 1993.
Decided On : 6-12-1993
For the Petitioner:Santosh Kaushik, for R.S. Rathore, Advocates.
For the Respondent: K.A. Khan, Public Prosecutor.
The court has the discretion to modify orders regarding the mode of security required for the return of seized cash amounts.
Headnote:
Bank-guarantee - Trade of Leather - The court modified the order to allow the petitioner to receive the cash amount of Rs. 54,950 on furnishing solvent security and undertaking as required by the trial court, instead of bank-guarantee.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, involved in the trade of leather, had a cash amount of Rs. 54,950 seized during an investigation. The trial court ordered the amount to be returned on furnishing a bank-guarantee of the same amount.
Finding of the Court:
The court modified the order, allowing the petitioner to receive the cash amount on furnishing solvent security and undertaking as required by the trial court, instead of a bank-guarantee.
Issues: The issue was whether the petitioner should be allowed to receive the seized cash amount on the basis of solvent security instead of a bank-guarantee.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the submission of the petitioner's counsel and the lack of serious objection from the prosecution, and modified the order to allow the petitioner to receive the cash amount on furnishing solvent security and undertaking as required by the trial court.
Final Decision: The miscellaneous petition was allowed, and the court modified the order to allow the petitioner to receive the cash amount on furnishing solvent security and undertaking as required by the trial court.
JUDGMENT
1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.The petitioner is involved in the trade of leather and is resident of Hapur(U.P.). On 23rd January, 1993, State Investigation Bureau, Jaipur made a search and Rs. 54,950/- was found in possession of the petitioner along with some documents. The rupees and documents were seized. During investigation, it has come on record that one Vijay Pal has paid the amount of Rs. 54,950/- on 16,17 and 18th January, 1993 to the petitioner. Then the petitioner moved an application, for getting back the cash amount Rs. 54,950/- , before the trial court. The trial court ordered to return the amount of Rs. 54,950/- on furnishing the bank-guarantee of the like amount, so that, in case it is found that the petitioner has got money by illegal sources, the amount can be confiscated.
2. The only objection of the petitioner is that the amount should be given to him on the basis of solvent security and not on Bank-guarantee, if the Bank-guarantee will be taken then the petitioner will have to deposit the amount to that extent in the bank for Bank-guarantee. Therefore, no purpose will be served in case the bank-guarantee is asked for.
3. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and that learned P.P. also has not seriously objected the prayer of the petitioner and in view of the facts stated above, I modily the impugned order dated 15.7.03 to the extent that instead of bank-guarantee, the cash amount of Rs. 54,950/- be paid to the petitioner on furnishing the solvent security and undertaking as required by the trial court. In the security bond, there should also be a stipulation that in case the amount of Rs. 54,950/-is not returned by the petitioner within a month from the date of direction of the court to do so, the properly which has been given in security shall be subjected to the confiscation in lieu of Rs. 54,950/- and the owner of that property shall have no right to call in question the confiscation of such property in lieu of Rs. 54,950/- in any court.The misc. petition is allowed as indicated above.
*******
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
