Back
2024 Supreme(MP) 563
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
Subodh Abhyankar, J.
Narendra Sharma - Appellant
Vs.
The State Of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
CRA No. 3458 of 2023
Decided On : 21-10-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Shri Shivendra Singh Rawat, - Adv.
For the Respondent: Shri Raghvendra Singh Raghuvanshi, Shri Amit Singh Sisodia –Adv.
The court emphasized the need for timely return of seized amounts to complainants in corruption cases, highlighting legislative gaps that discourage reporting corruption.
Headnote:(A) Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 498 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 457 - Application for release of seized currency - Complainant provided Rupees Ten Lakhs for a trap operation, which was seized and remained unreturned post his demise - Court emphasized the need for timely return of seized amounts to prevent financial loss to complainants. (Paras 1, 6, 10, 14, 16)
(B) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Need for legislative amendment to protect complainants' financial interests in corruption cases - Court noted the absence of provisions safeguarding complainants, which discourages reporting corruption. (Paras 14, 16)
Facts of the case:
The complainant provided a sum of Rupees Ten Lakhs to the Lokayukt Department for a trap operation against the appellant, who was caught red-handed. The amount remained with the court after the complainant's death.
Findings of Court:
The court ordered the release of the seized currency notes to the complainant's legal representatives, emphasizing the need for timely return to avoid financial loss.
Issues: The main issues were the return of the seized amount to the complainant's representatives and the legislative gap in protecting complainants in corruption cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the seized currency should be returned as it was provided before the specified date, highlighting the need for legislative changes to protect complainants' financial interests.
Result: Application allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard on I.A.No.12495/2024 which is an application filed by the legal representatives of the complainant Late Praveen Singh Solanki under Section 498 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/Section 457 of the CRPC for release of trap amount seeking following relief:-
“I This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to order the release of the trapped amount of Rupees 10,00,000/-on supurdginama to the legal representatives of the original complainant.
ii. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct to the respondents that the seized old currency was converted to the new currency released the siezed amount to the legal representatives of the original complainant.
iii. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any such and further order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper order be passed in the interest of justice.”
2. The grievance of the complainant is that he had provided a sum of Rupees Ten Lakhs to the Lokayukt Department for the purpose of trap of the appellant herein, who was caught red handed along with the aforesaid sum of Rupees Ten Lakhs.
3. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the aforesaid amount is still lying with the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption)Act, Mandleshwar , and although earlier an application for return of the aforesaid amount was made to the trial Court, however, the same was rejected on 18.1.2024, holding that the amount can be returned only in an appeal before the High Court, and as the appeal was already filed before this Court on 2.2.2023, thus, the present application has been filed and it is submitted that since the currency notes given by the complainant are no more required anymore, and there are no objections raised by the appellant, and respondent no.1 regarding the same, in such circumstances, the application may be allowed and the currency notes given by the complainant to the Lokayukt Department may be directed to be refunded to the legal representatives of the complainant as the complainant has already died.
4. Counsel for the complainant has also relied upon the notification dated 12.5.2017, issued by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Economic Affairs) which provides for such contingencies.
5. Prayer is not opposed by the counsels for the appellant as also respondent no.1/Lokayukukt.
6. Heard. This Court is of the considered opinion that even otherwise if the complainant had provided the aforesaid amount way back in the year 2015 which is a substantial amount even in the present time, it ought to have been returned to the complainant at the appropriate time as the complainant has already lost huge amount towards the interest only.
7. So far as the notification dated 12.5.2017 issued by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Economic Affairs) is concerned the same reads as under:-
“(Department of Economic Affairs)
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 12th May, 2017 G.S.R. 460(E).— In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 11, read with clause (c) of the proviso to section 5, of the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017 (2 of 2017), the Central Government hereby makes the following rules, namely:-
1. Short title and commencement.— (1) These rules may be called the Specified Bank Notes (Deposit of Confiscated Notes) Rules, 2017.
(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.
2. Deposit of confiscated specified bank notes.- Where specified bank notes have been confiscated or seized by a law enforcement agencies or produced before a court on or before the 30th day of December 2016, such specified bank notes may be tendered, at any office of the Reserve Bank specified under sub section (1) of section 4 of the Act or a nationalised bank designated by the Reserve Bank for the said purpose, for deposit in a bank account or exchange of the value thereof with legal tender, subject to the following conditions, namely:-
(a) in case confiscated specified bank notes are returned by t
