The respondent/ACB Police registered first information

report against one Devaraj K Shigganvi in Crime No.3/2021

for the offences punishable under sections 13(1B) and 13(2)

of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On obtaining

search

warrant

from

the

jurisdictional

Magistrate,

respondent/ACB raided the premises of the said accused and

during the raid conducted by respondent/ACB, an amount of

Rs.50,00,000/- belonging to the petitioner was seized from

the bank locker, the key of which was in possession of the

accused. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application before

the learned Sessions Judge under section 451 read with 457

of Cr.P.C., seeking release of cash seized from the bank

locker of the petitioner. The learned Sessions Judge rejected

the application for release of the said amount. Taking

exception to the same, this petition is filed.

- 3 -

2.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the petitioner having admitted the seizure of the cash

from his bank locker is entitled for release of the amount in

view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

Sunderbai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat reported in

(2002) 10 SCC 283.

3.

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing

for respondent/ACB submits that though the petitioner has

admitted the seizure of cash from his locker, however

pending investigation of the matter, the petitioner is not

entitled for release of the said amount. He further submits

that the petitioner is yet to provide explanation with regard

to his known source of income for possessing the cash seized

from his locker.

4.

I have considered the submission of the learned

counsel for parties.

5.

Though the petitioner has produced certain

documents, which are detailed in Annexure-K-15 at page

133 to establish the known source of income for possessing

- 4 -

the amount seized from his locker, however, it is a matter

which requires to be considered during the course of

investigation. The petitioner has admitted the seizure of the

cash from the bank locker belonging to him. It is undisputed

that the amount seized by respondent/ACB was from the

bank locker of the petitioner, the key of which was in

possession of the accused. However, interim release of the

seized property will not preclude the respondent from

investigating into the source of said funds. The Hon’ble Apex

Court, in the case of Sunderbai (supra) at paragraph 14

has held as under:

“14. In case, where such articles are not handed over

either to the complainant or to the person from whom

such articles are seized or to its claimant, then the

Court may direct that such articles be kept in bank

lockers. Similarly, if articles are required to be kept in

police custody, it would be open to the SHO after

preparing proper panchnama to keep such articles in a

bank locker. In any case, such articles should be

produced before the Magistrate within a week of their

seizure. If required, the Court may direct that such

articles be handed back to the Investigating Officer for

further investigation and identification. However, in no

set of circumstances, the Investigating Officer should

- 5 -

keep such articles in custody for a longer period for the

purposes

of

investigation

and

identification.

For

currency notes, similar procedure can be followed.”

6.

The Apex Court in the aforesaid case supra, has

held that in no set of circumstances, the Investigating Officer

should keep such articles in custody for a longer period for

the purpose of investigation and identification and for

currency notes, similar procedure can be followed.

7.

In view of the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble

Apex Court in the aforesaid case, the petitioner having

admitted the seizure of cash from his locker and also the

investigation will not be adversely affected, if the seized

amount is released. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for

release of the cash seized from his bank locker subject to

certain conditions. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

The