9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 246X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evenue. - Crl.R.C.No.1585 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 29-7-2013 - C. S. KARNAN,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. K. Rangasamy Special Public Prosecutor for IT cases For the Respondents : Mr. K. Ravi for R-1 Mr. M. Mohammed Riyaz, Government Advocate for R-2 ORDER The short facts of the prosecution case are as follows:- On 17.10.2003, when the accused was travelling on his motorcycle with a sum of Rs.8,07,050/- in cash, the Sub Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch intercepted him near Gandhi Irvin Bridge, Egmore and registered a case against him for offences under Sections 41(2) read with 102 Cr.P.C, on suspicion that the money was stolen property or it had been obtained through some other offence. The Sub Inspector of Police s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the learned Magistrate partly allowed the claim in Crl.M.P.No.167 of 2004 and a sum of Rs.5,30,000/- was ordered to be returned to the petitioner on his executing a bond of Rs.6,00,000/- with one security for like sum on condition that he shall return the amount to the Court as and when required. The learned Magistrate further directed the petitioner to file an affidavit/undertaking that he shall redeposit the amount on the direction of the Court. 5. Likewise, the learned Magistrate partly allowed the claim in Crl.M.P.No.854 of 2004 filed by the Income Tax Department and ordered that a sum of Rs.2,92,373/- was to be returned to the Income Tax Department, which was the balance after deduction of Rs.5,30,000/- from the total amount. 6. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich relates to the pre-assessment stage, but the reason given by the learned Magistrate that the Department is not entitled to seize the amount, seized by the Police as the Tax is yet to be determined, is contrary to Section 132A of the Income Tax Act. The accused stated that the alleged loan given by the sister-in-law of the assessee did not reflect in the return filed by the assessee and the brother of the assessee has no sufficient means to advance loan to the accused. Further, the accused, his brother and his wife have not maintained any books of accounts. 8. The very competent counsel appearing for the revision petitioner further contended that the learned Magistrate erred in splitting the seized amount and returning a part of the am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, subsequently, the Income Tax Department also came into the picture on the suo-moto order of the Magistrate. 10. The learned counsel for the State vehemently argued that the Sub Inspector of Police attached to the Crime Branch contended that the accused had been intercepted on suspicion and a sum of Rs.8,07,050/- was found as unexplained money in the possession of the accused, therefore, a criminal case has been levelled against him. Subsequently, the case is referred to the learned Magistrate, who is the competent authority to decide the issue of ownership of seized money. The highly competent counsel further contended that it is open to the accused to provide a suitable explanation to the Income Tax Authorities and get return of his m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
