2017 (4) TMI 4 - HC - FEMA

Rejecting the petition of the petitioner for releasing the foreign currency notes recovered from the vehicle of the petitioner - Held that - From plain reading of Section 451 of Cr P C, it appears that the Court should pass order with regard to the custody or release of the seized articles. Admittedly, the petitioner was having licence to deal in foreign currency and his licence was valid up till 31.08.2016. He applied for renewal of his licence on 04.01.2016, one month before the date of expiry of that licence. From the perusal of Annexure 2 it appears that the Reserve Bank of India renewed the licence of the petitioner to deal in foreign currency on 04th January, 2016. The petitioner again applied for renewal of licence and in this interregnum period, it shall be deemed that the licence of the petitioner is valid unless there is express order by the authority concerned to reject the application of the petitioner granting his licence. It also transpires that the petitioner, who is dealing in foreign currency and the aforesaid foreign currency worth ₹ 39,12,102.30 P was seized and is kept in the District Treasury. Apparently, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the currency in the District Treasury. Therefore, that currency should be released in favour of the petitioner on providing proper security. It is also a fact that foreign currency is not a material evidence. Therefore, find that the rejection of the petition of the petitioner by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate as well as the learned Additional Sessions Judge X, East Champaran at Motihari holding that the petitioner has got no licence is illegal and it cannot be allowed to sustain. Considering the facts aforesaid, the quashing petition is allowed. Direction to the Court below to release the foreign currency in favour of the petitioner on providing security of the same amount with one surety.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of order rejecting release of foreign currency seized in a police case.
2. Validity of petitioner's license to deal in foreign currency.
3. Interpretation of Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding custody and release of seized property.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought to quash an order rejecting the release of foreign currency worth ?39,12,102.30 seized in a police case. The Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge upheld the rejection. The petitioner had applied for renewal of their license to deal in foreign currency before the expiry date, which was renewed by the Reserve Bank of India. The petitioner argued that retaining the currency served no purpose and should be released.

2. The petitioner claimed to have a valid license to deal in foreign currency, which was renewed before the expiry date. The State argued that the petitioner did not possess a valid license at the time of seizure. The Court noted that the petitioner's license renewal application was pending, and hence, the license should be deemed valid unless expressly rejected. The Court found no purpose in retaining the foreign currency as it was not material evidence and ordered its release upon providing security.

3. Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with custody and disposal of property pending trial. The Court emphasized that the seized property should be released or kept in custody as per the circumstances. In this case, since the petitioner had a valid license and the currency was not crucial evidence, the Court deemed the rejection of the release petition illegal. The Court allowed the quashing petition, setting aside the previous orders and directing the release of the foreign currency upon providing security.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the quashing petition, overturning the rejection of the release of seized foreign currency. The Court emphasized the validity of the petitioner's license and the lack of purpose in retaining the currency, ordering its release upon providing security. The judgment highlighted the importance of interpreting relevant legal provisions, such as Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to ensure fair and just outcomes in cases involving seized property.