The central legal point established in the judgment is that unless guilt is proved, the petitioner cannot be denied the return of the seized money, and the relevant legal provisions must be adhered to for the refund of seized currency notes.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents or their subordinates to return the sum of Rs.6,78,010/- vide receipt bearing No.Nil dated 13.05.2016, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 13.05.2016 till date of disbursement.)

1. The petitioner, who is a farmer, seeks a direction to the respondents (original respondents 1 and 2) or their subordinates to return the sum of Rs.6,78,010/-, which was seized from him vide receipt bearing No.Nil dated 13.05.2016, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 13.05.2016 till date of disbursement.

2. The petitioner owns certain extent of nanja and punja lands in Andiyarpalayam village of Vanur Taluk with valid patta. He has been residing in the said land and installed a pump shed. The petitioner entered into an agreement with one Sundararaja Pillai on 10.01.2016 for sale of casurina trees, which were ready for cutting and received total sum of Rs.7,15,000/- as sale consideration between January and April, 2016. After incurring certain agricultural and personal expenses, the petitioner had a balance sum of Rs.6,78,010/- with him. The petitioner alleged that someone had informed the Election Flying Squad with mala fide intention that the distribution of money for the election was made in the petitioner’s pump shed and hence, the Flying Squad visited his premises and seized the said money, for which, he was issued with a receipt. A First Information Report was registered in Crime No.377 of 2016 on the file of Kiliyanur Police Station for the offence under Section 171(E) of IPC. The petitioner filed CMP No.104 of 2017 before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vanur, for the return of the said money, which was dismissed on 04.03.2017 only on the ground that the police did not seize the money, which was deposited with the Sub Treasury and not with the Court. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation with relevant documents to the respondents 1 and 2 on 14.03.2017 seeking return of money. It is claimed by the petitioner that on 05.09.2017, the taluk level officials, concurring with the claim of the petitioner, submitted a report, but till the date of filing of the writ petition, no order has been passed on the same. It is also stated by the petitioner that the police have not filed any final report in the case. In this backdrop, the petitioner is before this Court in the instant writ petition.

3. The second respondent filed a counter-affidavit dated 22.10.2016, wherein, it is stated that the second respondent, being the Assistant Election Officer for the Vanur Constituency seized the sum of Rs.6,78,010/- on 13.05.2016 from the petitioner under a seizure, in which, the petitioner put his signature and also given his statement and the money was kept in the safe custody of the Sub Treasury, Vanur. It is also claimed by the second respondent that the petitioner had not filed any proper particulars and records in accordance with the election rules for the claim of the money, but only on 14.03.2017, he sent a representation seeking return of money. The second respondent also claimed that after demonitization, they have taken the money from the Sub Treasury to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) for exchange of currency note on 22.03.2017, but they were informed that when the money was seized in connection with any case, the Court order has to be produced for exchange. Relying upon the Gazette Notification No.365 issued by the Department of Economic Affairs, Government of India, on 12.05.2017, the second respondent admitted that the amount having been seized before 30.12.2016, the RBI has to exchange the specified notes with legal tender. The second respondent also informed the petitioner to approach the District Revenue Officer, the fourth respondent herein, who is the competent authority, to decide the issue of return of seized amount.

4. The fourth respondent/the District Re