SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Raj) 489

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.
M/s. Mectec Firm, Proprietorship Of Nina Shah - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1506 of 2020
Decided On : 05-06-2020

Advocates Appeared:
Shivangshu Naval, Advocate, Arvind Bhadu, Advocate

Cash recovered from thieves and confirmed to belong to the petitioner-firm by the Income Tax Department should be released subject to conditions, including preparing a panchanama, taking photographs, and obtaining a surety and personal bond.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 451 - RELEASE OF SEIZED CASH - INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT NOC - CASH AMOUNT RECOVERED FROM THIEVES - OWNERSHIP ESTABLISHED - RELEASE OF CASH SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner-firm sought release of Rs. 1,69,00,000/- cash recovered from thieves who attempted to steal it during transit. The Income Tax Department confirmed the cash was duly accounted for in the petitioner-firm's books.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Income Tax Department had conducted an inquiry and concluded that the cash belonged to the petitioner-firm. The court also noted that the Supreme Court had directed that valuable articles and currency notes be released to their owners after preparing a panchanama and taking photographs.

Issues: Whether the cash recovered from the thieves belonged to the petitioner-firm and should be released.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the cash should be released to the petitioner-firm subject to conditions. The court relied on the Income Tax Department's NOC and the Supreme Court's judgment in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat.

Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the release of the cash after preparing a panchanama and taking photographs. The petitioner-firm was required to provide a surety and a personal bond for making the cash available as and when required by the trial court.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. - By way of this Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner-firm, through its power of attorney holder, prays for releasing the cash amount of Rs.1,69,00,000/- which has been recovered from the thieves who had attempted to steal the money while it was being carried by the Manager of the petitioner firm namely; Mr. Gautam Kumar in the train. The petitioner-firm has also prayed for setting aside the order impugned dated 03/09/2019 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Kota in Criminal Misc. Application No.44/2019 under Section 457 Cr.P.C. for releasing of the said amount has been rejected.

    2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-firm submitted that the application was moved under Section 457 Cr.P.C. before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Kota, however, the same has been rejected vide order impugned solely on the ground that it is not possible to decide as to whether the cash recovered belongs to Mr. Gautam Kumar in his personal capacity or whether it is belonging to the petitioner-firm.

      2.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention of this Court to the letter issued by the Deputy Director, Income Tax (INV)-1, Udaipur to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Railway Court, Kota (Raj.) dated 19.07.2019/07.08.2019 wherein it has been stated as under:-

        2.2 Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in view of the aforesaid letter, there should have been no iota of doubt with regard to ownership of the cash and that the particulars of the cash have already been mentioned in the Income Tax Return of the petitioner-firm.

          2.3 Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283 has made observations with regard to valuable articles and currency notes as under:-

            "11. With regard to valuable articles, such as golden or sliver ornaments or articles studded with precious stones, it is submitted that it is of no use to keep such articles in police custody for years till the trial is over. In our view, this submission requires to be accepted. In such cases, Magistrate should pass appropriate orders as contemplated under Section 451 Cr.P.C. at the earliest.

              12. For this purposes, if material on record indicates that such articles belong to the complainant at whose house theft, robbery or dacoity has taken place, then seized articles be handed over to the complainant after:-

                (1) preparing detailed proper panchanama of such articles:

                  (2) taking photographs of such articles and a bond that such articles would be produced if required at the time of trial; and

                    (3) after taking proper security

                      13. For this purpose, the Court may follow the procedure of recording such evidence, as it thinks necessary, as provided under Section 451 Cr.P.C. The bond and security should be taken so as to prevent the evidence being lost, altered or destroyed. The Court should see that photographs or such articles are attested or countersigned by the complainant, accused as well as by the person to whom the custody is handed over. Still however, it would be the function of the Court under Section 451 Cr.P.C. to impose any other appropriate condition.

                        14. In case, where such articles are not handed over either to the complainant or to the person from whom such articles are seized or to its claimant, then the Court may direct that such articles be kept in bank lockers. Similarly, if articles are required to kept in police custody, it would be open to the SIIO after preparing proper panchnama to keep such articles in a bank locker. In any case, such articles should be produced before the Magistrate within a week of their seizure. If required, the Court may direct that such articles be handed over back to the Investigating Officer for further investigation and identification, However, in no set of circumstances, the Investigating Officer should keep such art

                                    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                                    1
                                    2
                                    3
                                    4
                                    5
                                    6
                                    7
                                    8
                                    9
                                    10
                                    11
                                    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                                    supreme today icon
                                    logo-black

                                    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                                    Please visit our Training & Support
                                    Center or Contact Us for assistance

                                    qr

                                    Scan Me!

                                    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                                    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                                    whatsapp-icon Back to top