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 notes, vehicles, seized liquor and narcotic drugs has been laid down therein.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.

1. Instant criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 31.07.2019, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khairwada, District Udaipur in Criminal Revision No. 3/2019 (CIS No. 3/2019) by which he dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner and upheld the order dated 26.04.2019, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Khairwada, District Udaipur in Complaint No. 1/2018 of Police Station Khairwada, District Udaipur by which the seized currency was refused to be handed over to the petitioner.

2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that a sum of Rs. 47,00,000/- which was being carried by one Sh. Vasudeo Chaubisa, an employee of the Firm of the petitioner, was seized by the Police, being a suspected property, near Khairwada Toll Plaza on 09.10.2018 under Section 102 Cr.P.C. An application for release of the said amount was filed by the petitioner before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Khairwada, District Udaipur stating that the said amount belongs to him and the same has been disclosed in the income tax returns submitted till the month of October, 2018. The learned Judicial Magistrate rejected the petitioner’s application vide order dated 26.04.2019. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khairwada, who also dismissed the revision vide order dated 31.07.2019 and affirmed the order dated 26.04.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate refusing to hand over the seized currency of Rs. 47 lacs to the petitioner. Hence this misc. petition before this Court.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 102 Cr.P.C. authorizes a Police officer to seize any property, which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen or which may, found under circumstances, create a suspicion of commission of any offence. In the present case, the currency of Rs. 47 lacs was certainly seized by the Police from Sh. Vasudeo Chaubisa, employee of the petitioner, who at the time of seizure made a specific disclosure about the source of said currency of Rs. 47 lacs. Since, the Police after having recovered currency of Rs. 47 lacs under Section 102 Cr.P.C. forwarded the report, as mandatorily required by virtue of sub-section (3) of Section 102 Cr.P.C. to the concerned Magistrate (i.e. Judicial Magistrate, Khairwada), where the petitioner filed an application for handing him over the currency, inasmuch as the same was not claimed by anyone else and also that satisfactory explanation about the currency being possessed by Vasudeo Chaubisa was disclosed. Thus, the learned courts below have committed error in refusing to hand over the seized currency to the petitioner by the impugned orders.

4. It is further submitted that in the present case, neither there was any allegation of suspicion of the currency being stolen, or was there any suspicion that some offence has been committed. Thus, in absence of any such position, the courts below were legally required to hand over the custody of the seized currency of Rs. 47 lacs to the petitioner.

5. Furthermore, it appears that both the courts below while proceeding to pass impugned orders have kept in consideration the letter dated 24.10.2018 given before the learned trial court by the Deputy Director, Income Tax Department, not to give recovered currency to the petitioner for the same was unexplained and unaccounted cash, and that notice under Section 132-A of the Income Tax Act had already been issued to the petitioner. It is submitted that even if some delinquency has been committed by the petitioner while filing income tax returns, then also the Income Tax Department can, by conducting an enquiry with respect to seized cash currency of Rs. 47 lacs, proceed to levy penalty against the petitioner according to the provisions enumerated in the Income Tax Act, but a competent court cannot refuse legal right of an incumbent, who is entitled to have currency released in