MAHARAJAN J.

The question that arises for consideration in this criminal revision is, who is entitled under section 523, Criminal Procedure Code, to the amount of cash seized from one Mohammed Koya on January 29, 1970 ? As Mohammed Koya arrived at the Madras Central Station at about 4.30 p.m. on that day by West Coast Express, the Inspector, Railway Police, searched him on suspicion and found on his person currency notes of the value of rupees one lakh. Suspecting him of commission of an offence cognizable by the police, the Inspector arrested him and produced him before the Second Presidency Magistrate, Madras, along with the amount seized. Mohammed Koya was remanded to custody and released on bail subsequently. The Inspector, Railway Police, Madras Central, found on investigation that no cognizable offence has been made out against Mohammed Koya, and dropped the proceedings after intimating the income-tax department. The income-tax department found, on investigation, that the amount of rupees one lakh represented the income of Mohammed Koya which he had failed to disclose to the income-tax department. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, Kerala and Bombay, authorised the V-Income-tax Officer, Madras, to take possession of the amount under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, and in pursuance of this authorisation, the Income-tax Officer filed a petition before the Second Presidency Magistrate claiming to be the person entitled to the possession of the amount in court deposit and requesting the court to hand over the amount to him. On the other hand, one Mohammed Kunhi filed a petition before the court below praying for the return of the amount to him. Mohammed Koya supported the application of Mohammed Kunhi on the ground that the amount seized by the police from him did not represent the monies belonging to him, and that the monies really belonged to Mohammed Kunhi, who as the managing partner of M/s. P. Mamunchi C. Ebrahim & Company, Nileshwar, Cannanore, had entrusted him with the amount on behalf of Kallatre Textorium, Mangalore, for being paid to the Southern India Trading Corporation Ltd., Bombay. In other words, the case of Mohammed Koya was that he was merely a carrier entrusted with the task of carrying the amount of rupees one lakh from Mangalore to Bombay for the purpose of payment of the same to the Southern India Trading Corporation on behalf of Kallatre Textorium, Mangalore. If really any monies were payable by Kallatre Textorium to the Southern India Trading Corporation, one would expect them to have sent it by means of a crossed cheque or a demand draft. The carriage of this huge amount by Mohammed Koya over several hundreds of miles was attended with evident risks. That Mohammed Kunhi should have resorted to this hazardous method of transporting the money has naturally enough aroused the suspicion of the income-tax department. Further, Mohammed Koya claims to be only a hawker doing business in Bombay Railway Station platform, and the income-tax department is entitled to wonder if Mohammed Kunhi could have reposed confidence in this platform pedlar and entrusted him with rupees one lakh as a carrier. If in these circumstances and in consequence of information, which he says he had in his possession, the Commissioner of Income-tax authorised the Income-tax Officer to seize the amount, the authorisation cannot be attacked in this court on the ground that there is no basis for his reason to believe that the money represented either wholly or partly income which has not been disclosed by Mohammed Koya for the purposes of the Indian Income-tax Act. In fact, the income-tax department, has, after notice to Mohammed Koya, assessed him to an income-tax of Rs. 62, 375 under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act on the basis that the amount of rupees one lakh represents his undisclosed income. It has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 50, 000 under section 273(b) of the Act on the ground that