Imran Mansoori vs State of Rajasthan - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 19106

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 19106

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Anoop Kumar Dhand, J
Imran Mansoori – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5466/2024

Important Points

Once a criminal case is withdrawn by the state and the accused is acquitted, there is no legal justification for the state to retain seized money in the treasury, provided the source of funds is verified by the relevant authorities.

Subject

Criminal Law - Release of Property

Act Referred

Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance, 1949: S.13
Code of Criminal Procedure: S.321

Headnote

The case involves the Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance, 1949, specifically Section 13, and Section 321 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner had a mobile phone and a sum of Rs. 7,35,000 seized during an investigation. Following a government circular dated 11.11.2022, the prosecution was withdrawn, and the petitioner was acquitted. However, the trial and revisional courts refused to release the seized money, asserting that funds pertaining to gambling cannot be released unless the offence is tried. The primary issue is whether seized funds can be retained by the state after the criminal proceedings have been withdrawn and the accused acquitted. The court reasoned that once the petitioner has been acquitted on the basis of the withdrawal of the criminal case, "there was no reason or occasion to retain the seized amount in the Treasury or in the Government Fund," finding the lower court's observation to be foreign to the procedure established by law. The instant petition stands allowed.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rajneesh Gupta
For the Respondents: Manvendra Singh Shekhawat

Table of Content
1. procedural history of seizure and subsequent acquittal via withdrawal of prosecution. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 9)
2. contention regarding the nature of seized gambling money versus the effect of acquittal. (Para 6 , 7)
3. legal invalidity of retaining seized funds in the treasury after a case is withdrawn and the accused is acquitted. (Para 8 , 10 , 11)
4. order for release of funds subject to source verification by the income tax department. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)

Order

1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 25.04.2023, passed by the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, (First Class) No.5, Kota in Case No.955/2022, by which the application submitted by the petitioner for getting supurdagi of the seized mobile phone and money has been partly allowed to the extent of release of the mobile phone only.

2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, a revision petition was submitted by the petitioner before the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Kota (hereinafter referred to as the 'the Revisional Court'), however, the same was also rejected vide impugned order dated 02.07.2024. Hence, aggrieved by both the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the instant petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an F.I.R. bearing No.506/2021 was registered against the petitioner at the Police Station Gumanpura, District Kota City for the offence punishable under Section 13 of the Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance, 1949 (for short, "the RPGO"), wherein the mobile phone of the petitioner along-with a sum of Rs.7,35,000/- was seized by the Police and thereafter, the petitioner was charge-sheeted before the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, (First Class) No.5, Kota.

4. Counsel submits that during pendency of the trial, the Department of Home, Government of Rajasthan decided to withdraw the aforesaid criminal case, which was lying pending against the petitioner before the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, (First Class) No.5, Kota and also issued a Circular dated 11.11.2022 in this regard.

5. Counsel submits that pursuant to the aforesaid Circular, the prosecution against the petitioner was rendered as withdrawn by the State vide order dated 12.11.2022 and the petitioner was acquitted of the charge under Section 13 of the RPGO. Counsel submits that under the changed circumstances, an application was submitted by the petitioner for the release of his seized mobile phone along-with the aforesaid seized sum of money, however, the said application has been partly allowed by the Court below by the impugned order dated 25.04.2023 and it was ordered to release the seized mobile phone only, after removing the data, however, the seized sum of money has not been ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner.

6. Counsel submits that the Revisional Court has rejected the revision petition of the petitioner on the ground that the seized amount is the money pertaining to gambling, hence, the same cannot be released unless the offence is tried. Counsel submits that once the prosecution against the petitioner has been withdrawn, there is no question or occasion available to make such observation for conducting trial against the petitioner. Hence, interference of this Court is warranted.

7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer raised by counsel for the petitioner.

8. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record.

9. Perusal of the record indicates that when the aforesaid F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner under Section 13 of the RPGO, his mobile phone along-with certain amount, i.e., a sum of Rs.7,35,000/- was seized by the Investigating Agency and thereafter, the petitioner was charge-sheeted for the above stated offence before the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, (Fi