Point of Law: Money belongs to the organization in view of the silence maintained by the petitioner in claiming the said amount either during the trial or in his statement made under Section 342 of Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

SINDHU SHARMA, J.

1. The petitioner has invoked the inherent power of this Court under Section 561-A of Cr.P.C. for quashing the judgment and order dated 16.12.2014 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ramban, by virtue of which the application of the petitioner seeking release of Rs. 2,50,000/- and Rs. 720/- which was seized by the Police from him has been dismissed.

2. On 20.10.2009, S.H.O. Police Station, Banihal, received an information that the petitioner, an over ground worker was moving with some money which he had to handover to the District Commander Ayaz code Mussa and during checking of the Vehicle No. JK-14A/8262, it was found that four persons were travelling in the Tata Sumo, including the petitioner while three of them were empty handed but the petitioner was having a bag containing 150 notes of Rs. 1,000/- denomination and 200 notes of Rs. 500/- denomination. The petitioner was also in possession of three Nokia mobile phones and a letter on the letter pad of Lashkar-e-Toiba.

3. The petitioner was charged under Sections 17, 20, 21 and 40 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 to which he pleaded not guilty. The trial Court dismissed the Challan and acquitted the accused vide order dated 27.02.2013, but the trial Court did not direct release of any amount or goods seized in his favour. The petitioner, therefore, filed an application before the trial Court for release of the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- with thirteen percent interest, cash amount of Rs. 720/- three Nokia Mobile sets, one horse, seven sheep and three goats. This application was filed on 26.08.2014, which the trial Court dismissed on 16.12.2014 by holding as under:

“6. The applicant neither in denial to the charge against him nor on denial of incriminating evidence under Section 342 Cr.P.C. against him, deposed that he was carrying amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees two lacs fifty thousand) for depositing in J&K Bank against the loan obtained by him for the purchase of Tata Sumo and the applicant never claimed the said amount. Therefore, the Hawala money of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees two lacs fifty thousand) cannot be released in his favour.”

4. Aggrieved of order dated 16.12.2014, the petitioner filed the present petition under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. for quashing the said order passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramban, on the ground that the same is contrary to the judgment of the trial Court, therefore, it is the abuse of the process of the law.

5. Apart from the amount, in this application, the petitioner had sought release of one horse, three Nokia mobile sets, Rs. 7,200/- a wrist watch, seven sheep and three goats. However, the goats, sheep and horse are not the case property and these were attached during investigation and were kept on the Supurdanama for which a separate process is required to be followed. The petitioner in this petition seeks release of an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- and Rs. 720/- only. An amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- was seized from a bag which the accused was carrying. As per the letter head of Mujahideen Lashker-e-Toiba, the said amount was to be paid to the District Commander Mujahideen Lashker-e-Toiba. Unfortunately, there is no reference of this letter in the judgment of the trial Court acquitting the accused, though, its translated version in Urdu is also placed on the file.

6. The trial Court has rightly held that the petitioner neither claimed the said amount during trial by filing an application nor he claimed the amount when was examined under Section 342 of Cr.P.C.

7. A question was put to the accused by the trial Court that an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- has been recovered from him, to this, his reply was that the witnesses have not proved any case against him. He could have claimed the money by stating that he was carrying the same to be deposited in the J&K Bank against the loan he had obtained. Another question was regarding the statement of S.H.O. who found the amount of Rs. 2,50,