9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 131 - HC - Indian LawsSeeking return of seized amount - whether there is a serious error inasmuch as the learned Court failed to consider that the seized cash belong to Bharatiya Janata Party and the petitioner was authorized to collect the same? - HELD THAT - Provision of Section 451 provides for that when any property is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fir for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial - Thus, it is understood that to avoid such situation powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C should be exercised promptly and at the earliest as it is of no use to keep valuable articles and currency notes in police custody for years till the trial is overThe seized articles being the cash of ₹ 30 lacs be deposited to the account of the BJP, West Bengal Unit after detailed panchnama and by taking photographs of such articles and on proper security. Application disposed off.
Issues:
1. Rejection of application for return of seized cash under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Allegation against the petitioner for possession of cash belonging to a political party. 3. Investigation by Income Tax Department regarding the ownership of the seized cash. 4. Consideration of guidelines for return of seized articles/cash as per legal precedent. 5. Decision on the proper custody and disposal of the seized cash. Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenged the order rejecting the application for the return of seized cash under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner claimed to be the treasurer of a political party and stated that the seized cash belonged to the party, authorized for collection by him. However, the court found that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as the proceedings held by the Income Tax Authority, to support his claim. 2. The petitioner was accused of possessing the cash belonging to a political party, which was seized by the Hare Street Police Station. Despite the petitioner's assertion that he was carrying the cash on verbal instructions from a political supervisor, the court noted discrepancies in the evidence provided by the petitioner, leading to the rejection of the application for return of the cash. 3. The Income Tax Department conducted an investigation into the ownership of the seized cash and found that it was withdrawn from the bank account of the political party. The report submitted by the Income Tax Department supported the claim that the cash belonged to the political party, as evidenced by the transactions recorded in the party's cash book. 4. The court referred to the legal precedent in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, highlighting guidelines for the return of seized articles/cash. The judgment emphasized the importance of promptly exercising powers under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C to avoid keeping valuable items in police custody for an extended period. 5. Based on the investigation by the Income Tax Department and the legal precedent cited, the court directed the proper custody and disposal of the seized cash. It ordered the cash of ?30 lacs to be deposited to the account of the political party after detailed documentation and security measures, ensuring compliance with the provisions of Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. Overall, the court disposed of the revisional application and provided clear directions for the custody and handling of the seized cash, emphasizing the importance of following legal procedures and guidelines in such cases.
|
