Seized property must be returned to the rightful owner unless justified otherwise, ensuring no deprivation without legal authority, as per Article 300A of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

(Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.)

1. The present application under Section 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as "Cr.P.C") has been filed for quashing the order dated 1.7.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No. 2, Varanasi, in Criminal Revision No. 422 of 2022 (Waseem Riaz vs. State of U.P.) whereby the Revisional Court affirmed the order dated 13.10.2022 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Varanasi on an application under Section 457 read with Section 451 of Cr.P.C for release of the Indian currency of Rs. 1,87,00,000/-, which was seized during the investigation of Case Crime No. 46 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 406, 120-B, 411, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C. registered on 21.04.2022 at Police Station Chetganj, District Varuna (Commissionerate Varanasi) filed by the present applicant on behalf of his father after having authority, which has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts as culled out from the record are that the applicant filed an application under Section 457 read with Section 451 of Cr.P.C. for release Indian Currency Rs. 1,87,00,000/- which has been recovered and seized during investigation of Case Crime No. 46 of 2022 registered at Police Station Chetganj, District Varuna (Commissionerate Varanasi) from co-accused Sachin Sharma. As per the recovery memo dated 28.04.2022, Indian currency has been recovered in denomination of Rs. 2000/-, Rs. 500/-, Rs. 200/-, Rs. 100/- as 983, 33088, 600 and 700 respectively stating that the applicant is the real owner of the aforesaid case property.

2(i). After lodging of the First Information Report dated 21.04.2022, which has been registered by private opposite party no. 2 against four named accused persons by first informant who is admittedly an agent of Sapos Services Pvt. Ltd. (collection company). During the investigation Police seized the Indian currency of Rs. 1,87,00,000/- by recovery memo dated 28.04.2022.

2(ii). After completing the investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against four accused persons under Sections 419, 420, 406, 120-B, 411, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C. and the trial of the aforesaid case is pending.

2(iii). The present applicant filed an application on 13.05.2022 under Section 457 read with Section 451 of Cr.P.C. to release the seized Indian currency on behalf of his father, on the basis of authority which has been given by his father as the applicant is sole son, who look after the business of his father, passed for interim custody in favour of the applicant, who claimed himself to be the owner of the property seized, which has been dismissed by learned Magistrate on 13.10.2022. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate, applicant filed Criminal Revision which has also been dismissed on July 1, 2024.

2(iv). The accused persons have not filed any application to release the Indian currency till today.

2(v). The first informant has not filed any application to release the aforesaid cash in his favour till today and admittedly he gave consent to release the aforesaid Indian currency in favour of present applicant.

3. The Learned Magistrate observed that the present Indian currency is a case property of the aforesaid Case Crime. However, observed that the applicant is real owner of the seized Indian currency. There is no dispute with regard to the ownership of the aforesaid currency. As per pre- summoning evidence (statement of first informant), the first informant collected the aforesaid amount on behalf of father of the applicant.

4. The Income Tax Commissioner filed an application to release aforesaid cash stating that the source and nature of seized cash could not be explained. On 07.09.2022, the S.H.O. Chetganj, Varanasi was issued requisition letter which has been served but the S.H.O. has not delivered cash to Income Tax Department. It is further alleged that the seized amount represented is undisclosed income, the objection of the assesse h