2018 (7) TMI 2127 - HC - Indian Laws

Unexplained cash - police seized cash from one Selvaraj on the basis of which the police registered Crime - petitioner, who claimed to be the employer of Selvaraj, filed an application under section 451 Cr.P.C. By the impugned order the learned Magistrate dismissed it - HELD THAT - Department reported to the Magistrate that though notices was issued to Selvaraj from whom the cash was seized, he did not respond to it. This was the reason for the Magistrate's dismissing the application. I think the decision is correct. But the learned counsel submits that the Magistrate may be directed to reconsider the matter on merits after hearing the petitioner and the Income Tax Department and the Directorate of Enforcement. I think the request is reasonable. In the result this Crl.M.C is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The petitioner is directed to implead the Income Tax Department and Directorate of Enforcement in the application filed under section 451 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate shall issue a notice to them and after hearing all the parties dispose of the matter in accordance with the law.

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure of cash by police from an individual.
2. Dismissal of application under section 451 Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate.
3. Request for reconsideration of the matter on merits after involving relevant parties.

Analysis:
1. The police seized ?10,00,000 in cash from an individual, leading to the registration of Crime No.384 of 2018 at Walayar Police Station. The cash was presented before the learned Magistrate by the petitioner, who claimed to be the employer of the individual from whom the cash was seized.

2. The learned Magistrate dismissed the application filed under section 451 Cr.P.C. based on the report from the Income Tax Department, stating that the individual from whom the cash was seized did not respond to the notices issued by the Department. The decision of the Magistrate was challenged, and during the hearing, the learned counsel requested the court to direct the Magistrate to reconsider the matter on merits after involving the petitioner, the Income Tax Department, and the Directorate of Enforcement.

3. The court found the request for reconsideration reasonable and allowed the Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C). The impugned order was set aside, and the petitioner was directed to involve the Income Tax Department and the Directorate of Enforcement in the application under section 451 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate was instructed to issue notices to all parties involved and dispose of the matter in accordance with the law. Additionally, the Income Tax Department was granted the liberty to file a claim petition, which would also be adjudicated by the learned Magistrate.

This judgment highlights the importance of due process and involving all relevant parties in matters concerning the seizure of assets by authorities, ensuring a fair and comprehensive consideration of the circumstances surrounding such actions.