9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Claim of the Income Tax Department for custody of seized money. 2. Ownership of the seized money. 3. Legal provisions governing disposal of case property. 4. Application of Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 5. Relevance of previous legal precedents. 6. Public interest in confiscating property acquired through criminal activities. Analysis: 1. The appeal by the Revenue challenged the order rejecting the Income Tax Department's application for custody of Rs. 10,50,000 seized from an accused, Assa Ram. The Department claimed the money to set off a tax demand against Assa Ram for the assessment year 1971-72. However, the Special judge dismissed the claim, leading to the appeal. 2. The ownership of the seized money was disputed. Assa Ram, the accused, did not claim the money as his own. Another individual, Ghansham Dass, later claimed the money, but his claim was also rejected. The court found that the money did not belong to Assa Ram, as he failed to explain its source, leading to his conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Ghansham Dass's claim was deemed unconvincing, and the court concluded that the money was case property. 3. The disposal of case property was governed by Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This provision allows the court to order the destruction, confiscation, or delivery of property based on the circumstances of the case. In this instance, since neither Assa Ram nor Ghansham Dass established ownership of the money, the court upheld the confiscation of the money to the State. 4. Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, outlines the procedure for disposing of case property. The court must make appropriate orders regarding the property, considering the nature of the offense and the ownership claims. In this case, since the accused and the claimant failed to prove ownership, the court rightly confiscated the money to the State. 5. Previous legal precedents, such as the case of J.S. Parkar v. V.B. Pakkar, were cited but deemed irrelevant to the present case. The judgment highlighted that the confiscated property should not be retained by the offender, emphasizing public interest in depriving criminals of assets acquired through illegal activities. 6. The judgment emphasized the public interest in confiscating property obtained through criminal offenses. The court noted that the real owner did not come forward to claim the money, supporting the decision to confiscate it to the State. Ultimately, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the order of confiscation of the property to the State.
|
