Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Vivek Chaudhary, Om Prakash Shukla, JJ.
Ajmat Ullah Ansari And Another – Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others – Respondents
Writ - C No. - 11080 of 2023
Decided On : 06-03-2024
Net Banking - Release of Seized Amount - Section 102 Cr.P.C - [Section 102 Cr.P.C] - The court analyzed the legality of the seizure of cash amounting to Rs.6,60,200/- and the application of Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It emphasized the need for compliance with statutory procedures and found fault with the police officer for not following the legal requirements before and after the seizure. The court quashed the impugned order and directed the release of the seized amount to the petitioners, reserving liberty to initiate action afresh in accordance with the law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, engaged in the business of Net Banking as sub-agents under a license granted by the Reserve Bank of India, had a sum of Rs.6,60,200/- seized during a general search operation related to the Panchayat Election. They applied for the release of the seized amount, which was rejected, leading to the present writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found fault with the police officer for not following the legal requirements before and after the seizure of the cash amount. It quashed the impugned order and directed the release of the seized amount to the petitioners, reserving liberty to initiate action afresh in accordance with the law.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the legality of the seizure of the cash amount and the application of Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for compliance with statutory procedures and held that the seizure of the cash amount was done without due compliance of law. It directed the release of the seized amount to the petitioners.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and directed the respondents to release the seized amount of Rs.6,60,200/- to the petitioners, reserving liberty to initiate action afresh in accordance with the law.
JUDGMENT :
Om Prakash Shukla, J.
1. The challenge in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the order dated 11th July, 2023 passed by the Assistant District Election Officer, District Office (Panchayat and Nagariya Nikay), Gonda (respondent no.3), whereby representation dated 06.06.2023 preferred by the petitioners for release of sum of Rs.6,60,200/-, which was seized during the Three-tier Panchayat General Election, 2021 from Vehicle No. UP-32-FP-4674 (Eco Sport Ford) belonging to the petitioners on 01.04.2021, has been rejected.
2. In nutshell, the facts of the case are that petitioners are the real brothers. Petitioner No.1-Ajmat Ullah Ansari, who is the sub-agent of Instant Global Money Transfer Private Limited, bearing license No. F.E.C.G.F.M.C.088/2005 dated 30.09.2005 M.T.S.S. License No. E.C.C.O. E.P.D./995/22624/9899 dated 30.03.1999, deals with the transfer of money. The said license was issued on 30.04.2005 and continued till 31.05.2018 and the same was renewed from time to time under the condition stipulated by the Reserve bank of India. On 10.10.2018, the name of the company was changed and renewed upto 31.06.2021 and thereafter it has again been renewed till 31.06.2024.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that during the last phase of March, 2021 for five days, bank was closed. The petitioners had to deliver a sum of Rs.7,57,340/- to 36 account holders, details of such persons have been enclosed as Annexure No.4 to the writ petition. For this purpose, the petitioner no.1 had transferred a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- from HDFC Bank Account No. 50200006369820 (IFSC Code No. HDFC003765) through his colleague, namely, Shahid, who runs National Mobile Travels Agency Jamunia Bagh, Gonda and the said money was transferred to Account No.051505500857 to Branch Gonda. According to the petitioners, on 01.04.2021, after withdrawing the said amount, they were going to deliver the same to 36 persons from their Vehicle No. UP-32-FP-4674 (Eco Sport Ford). In the way, local police of Police Station Dhanepur, District Gonda had intercepted them and found a bag containing said amount of Rs.6,60,200/-. Immediately thereafter, the petitioners had produced the documentary evidence before the police, but the local police was not satisfied with the documentary evidence and as such, the bag containing the aforesaid amount was seized. Thereafter, as per report of Station Officer of Police Station Dhanepur, Gonda, the aforesaid amount was deposited in Government Treasury with sealed pack at serial No.730 dated 03.04.2021. Thereafter, on 06.06.2023, they preferred a representation to the District Election Officer (Panchayat and Nagariya), Gonda, which was rejected vide order dated 11.07.2023. It is this order dated 11.07.2023, which has been challenged in the instant writ petition.
4. Heard Shri Dadu Ram Shukla, learned Counsel representing the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel representing the State/respondents no.1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 and Shri Rohit Shukla, learned Counsel representing the respondents no.3 and 4.
5. Learned Counsel representing the petitioners has submitted that vide Master Circular No. 14/2011-12 (updated as on March 22, 2012) dated 01.07.2011, the Reserve Bank of India has issued Master Circular on Money Transfer Service Scheme (hereinafter referred to as ‘MTSS’). As per clause 3 of the aforesaid Circular, this Circular would stand withdrawn on July 1, 2012 and will be replaced by an updated Master Circular on the subject. The guidelines was issued in two parts i.e. Part-A and Part-B. Under Part-A, Section-I deals with Guidelines for Permitting Indian Agents and MTSS, whereas Section II deals with guidelines for overseas Principals and Section III deals with Guidelines for appointment of Sub-Agents by Indian Agents, which is relevant and reads as under :-
Guidelines for appointment of Sub-Agents by Indian Agents
The Indian Agent may appoint Sub-Agents who have place of business and a mi
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for compliance with statutory procedures, particularly in the context of the seizure of property under Section 102 of the Criminal ....
The powers of the Election Commission under Article 324 of the Constitution of India and the SOP for seizure and release of cash issued by the Election Commission of India were upheld, and the court ....
Seizure of cash without following prescribed procedures is illegal, and transfer to the Income Tax Department without an FIR is unauthorized.
The main legal point established is that cash is excluded from the definition of 'goods' under the CGST Act and cannot be seized under Section 67 as such. The court emphasized the need for the seizur....
Term ‘forthwith’ only requires that the act should be performed with reasonable speed and any delay in the matter should be satisfactorily explained.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the legality of freezing bank accounts under Section 102 Cr.P.C. and the applicability of this provision in the context of the case.
Interim custody of seized property under S. 503 BNSS should be granted expeditiously when there is no rival claim, using bonds and photographic records to secure evidentiary value rather than keeping....
Seizure of cash under CGST Section 67(2) invalid absent recorded 'reason to believe' of secretion and relevance to proceedings; automatic return mandated under Section 67(7) if no notice within six m....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
