9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h ran away with cash amounting to Rs. 42.50 lakhs out of Rs. 50 lakhs withdrawn from his current account lying with Shri. Vinayak Co-operative Bank Ltd., Kalupur. Pursuant to the said complaint, offence was registered as Crime Register Nos. 1-48 of 2009 and investigation started. During the course of investigation, the accused, Shailesh, was arrested by the police and muddamal currency notes of Rs. 42.50 lakhs were seized from him. As huge currency notes were seized, the Police Inspector, Karanj Police Station, vide his letter dated March 30, 2009, accompanied by copy of FIR informed the Deputy Director of Income -tax (Investigation) that if the Income-tax Department ("the Department" for short) intends to initiate any proceedings in this regard, they may approach the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 5, along with the letter. 3. In the meanwhile, the present respondent No. 2 submitted an application before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 5, in Karanj Police Station I, Crime Register No. 48 of 2009 under section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for obtaining muddamal currency notes which were seized by the police during the course of investigation. 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further submitted by Ms. Bhatt that in spite of serving summons, respondent No. 2 failed and neglected to appear before the Department which was sufficient for the Department to issue requisition under section 132A of the Act. He also did not show any documents indicating account ability of the seized currency notes and, hence, authorisation under section 132A of the Act was issued by the Department which was duly executed on the Police Inspector, Karanj Police Station, Ahmedabad City. However, the Police Inspector did not hand over the muddamal currency notes to the applicant. According to her, once authorisation issued under section 132A of the Act was duly executed on the Police Inspector, it was the duty of the Police Officer to hand over the seized muddamal to the Department. The learned Magistrate was also not authorised to order for an inquiry to find out whether the seized muddamal was accounted or not when a requisition was made by the Department but it is the concerned Assessing Officer, who will ascertain the tax liability of the assessee and will decide .about the release of muddamal on conclusion of inquiry. According to her, sufficiency of the tax liability cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny jurisdiction and, hence, the impugned order dated April 6, 2009, passed by the learned Magistrate does not require any interference. 11. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. K. P. Raval has adopted the submissions made on behalf of respondent No. 2 by Mr. Divetia. 12. Before dealing with the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, certain facts are necessary to be narrated. In pursuance of a complaint filed by respondent No. 2 for stealing away cash of Rs. 42.50 lakhs, his employee Shri Shailesh alias Sagar Dilipbhai Khadgi was arrested and muddamal currency notes of Rs. 42.50 lakhs were seized. The Department was intimated by the Karanj Police Station Officer to approach the learned Magistrate if they intend to initiate proceedings. Meanwhile, an application was submitted by the present respondent No. 2 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for getting the said muddamal currency notes. The applicant also submitted an application to hand over the same to complete the proceedings initiated by the Department against respondent No. 2. Since the Department was not handed over the muddamal, it preferred Cri. Rev. Appln. No. 206 of 2009 before this court. Since t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing section 132 of the Act only to protect the interest of the revenue of the State and if authority is satisfied regarding the source of income, it may pass appropriate order to d over the muddamal to the assessee or any concerned person. When question of huge currency is involved and if proceedings of inquiry under section 132A of the Act are initiated, then certainly truth will come before the Department regarding genuineness of the muddamal seized. 17. It appears that though request was made by the applicant through an application before the learned Magistrate for handing over the muddamal to the applicant and not to hand it over to respondent No. 2, the learned Magistrate ordered to hand over the muddamal to respondent No. 2. Thereafter, the applicant approached the learned Magistrate on April 15, 2009, by submitting an application that since the Department had filed revision being Crl. Rev. Appln. No. 206 of 2009 against the said order, the order passed by the learned Magistrate be stayed till the disposal of revision. It is surprising and shocking that the learned Magistrate rejected the said application. If reasonable time would have been granted by the learned Metropolit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
