Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J
MOIDEENKUTTY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC/7559/2016
Currency - Seizure - Cr.P.C. Section 451, Income Tax Act Section 132A - Court upheld magistrate's decision to release seized currency to Income Tax authorities due to inability of parties to explain possession.
Fact of the Case:
A police patrol discovered ₹3,09,50,000 concealed in a vehicle without adequate explanation from the passengers or driver, leading to its seizure and subsequent applications for its release.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the magistrate's decision to release the currency to the Income Tax Department was appropriate due to the unexplained possession of the cash by the vehicle's occupants.
Issues: Whether the learned magistrate's order to release seized currency to the Income Tax authorities was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that without a satisfactory explanation of the currency's possession, the magistrate's order to favor the Income Tax Department was valid.
Final Decision: Crl.M.C. dismissed, upholding the magistrate's order.
O R D E R
Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
2.On 05.11.2016 at about 12.20 in the evening, the Inspector of Police, Perinthalmanna, who was on patrol duty, got information that huge amount in cash was being brought in the vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN 04 AP 0094 at Angadippuram. The car was stopped. The inspection revealed that in a secret chamber in the car currency worth ₹3,09,50,000/- had been concealed. It was seized. The passengers in the vehicle and its driver, who are not parties to this proceedings, were not able to explain the possession of the currency. It was produced before the learned magistrate. The petitioner filed an application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. claiming right to the amount. In the meanwhile, the second respondent, Income Tax Department, also filed an application under Cr.P.C. The learned magistrate rejected the prayer of the petitioner by Annexure VII order and by Annexure VI order directed release of the currency to the second respondent. This is challenged in this Crl.M.C.
3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4.The Income Tax Department claimed the amount under Section 132A of the Income Tax Act . As mentioned earlier, the persons who brought the money could not explain its possession. The petitioner's case is that it was the amount he had entrusted to one Abdul Rasheed. He would further say that he is a businessman and he had obtained loan from various banks mentioned in the Crl.M.C. But, the persons, who brought the money, had no case that it was entrusted to them by Abdul Rasheed. In these circumstances, it was only proper for the learned magistrate to entrust the money to the Income Tax authorities. I do not find anything wrong in the order passed by the learned magistrate.
This Crl.M.C. is only to be dismissed.
In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed. The income tax authorities shall make all attempts to pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible.
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
