Back
Orders Release Of ₹7.35 Lakh Seized In Gambling Case After
In a significant ruling that underscores the limits of , the has directed the immediate release of ₹7.35 lakh to a man who was acquitted in a gambling case after the government withdrew the prosecution. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, sitting at the , held that retaining the money in the government treasury after is “.”
What Led to the Court’s Intervention?
The petitioner, Imran Mansoori, was booked under , at . During the investigation, the police seized his mobile phone along with a sum of ₹7,35,000. He was subsequently charge‑sheeted before the . However, while the trial was pending, the State Government, through the , issued a circular on deciding to withdraw the criminal case. Pursuant to that, the public prosecutor filed an application under , and on the court permitted the withdrawal, leading to the petitioner’s .
Following the , Mansoori moved an application for the release of the seized mobile phone and cash. The trial court released the phone (after wiping its data) but refused to hand over the money, an order that was affirmed by the revisional court. The revisional judge went further, holding that since the offence of gambling had been committed and the amount seized, the money could not be returned until the matter was tried – even though the State had already dropped the case.
Arguments Before the High Court
Counsel for the petitioner contended that once the prosecution was withdrawn and the petitioner stood acquitted, there was no legal basis to withhold the seized money. The State, he argued, had consciously decided not to proceed with the trial, leaving no occasion for the revisional court’s observation that the matter must first be tried.
The Public Prosecutor opposed the release but did not advance any statutory bar that would justify continuing the .
Key Observations from the Bench
Justice Dhand noted that the lower courts had offered no justified reason for refusing to release the money. The pivotal observation from the judgment states:
“Such observation made by the Revisional Court is , as once the petitioner has been acquitted on the basis of the registered against him, there was no reason or occasion to retain the seized amount in the Treasury or in the Government Fund.”
The Court further observed that permitting the State to keep the money after an would effectively amount to , violating fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence.
The Decision: Release with Tax Scrutiny
Setting aside the impugned orders of the trial and revisional courts “in part,” the High Court allowed the petition and directed the trial court to release ₹7,35,000 to the petitioner. However, the release is not unconditional. Mansoori must first submit details of the source of the money. Moreover, the , has been directed to verify those details. If the explanation is found unsatisfactory, the department is free to take appropriate action in accordance with law after giving the petitioner a hearing.
A copy of the order has been sent to the concerned Income Tax Officer for “intimation and necessary action,” effectively making the tax authorities a gatekeeper for the returned funds.
Implications
The ruling reinforces a : extinguishes any justification for continued state custody of seized property. While the condition of income‑tax verification adds a layer of fiscal oversight, the judgment makes clear that the state cannot indefinitely hold a citizen’s money merely because a criminal case was once registered. For accused persons who have been acquitted — whether after trial or following withdrawal of prosecution — this decision strengthens their right to reclaim seized assets without fresh litigation.
