9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 1089X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... endered by the learned Magistrate, the petitioner has preferred a Crl.Revision Petition which is now pending before the Sessions Court, Palakkad. Since the legality and correctness of the said issue decided by the learned Magistrate in giving custody of the seized amount to the 2nd respondent is now pending consideration before the Sessions Court,even going by the admitted case of the petitioner, it is not right and proper for the petitioner to approach this Court with similar prayers so as to short circuit the hierarchy of remedies available thereunder. In case if the petitioner has any grievances, it is for the petitioner to move the said Sessions Court for final orders. Even thereafter, in case if the petitioner has any legally jus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gistered by the 2nd respondent against one Muhammed Sahir and two others in crime No. 07/2019. The allegation was that the accused along with two others were transporting ₹ 99,00,000/- without any proper or valid documents in support of the source of money. The aforesaid amount was taken into custody by the 2nd respondent officer and produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court. The petitioner even produced all documents pertaining to the source of amount before the 2nd respondent officer, he was reluctant to accept the same and initiated criminal proceedings against the accused. The R.C. 231/2019 was registered against the accused in Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pattambi. The petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner makes a regular payment more than ₹ 20,00,000/- to his bank account in Federal Bank at Malappuram Branch in his account No.11025500171891. It was admitted that petitioner delegated the 1st and the 2nd accused for remitting the amount in his bank account, but due to some reasons beyond their control, the 1st and the 2nd accused was not able to remit the amount and hence they were in need to get back with the amount. It is submitted that 08/01/2019 was a strike day in the entire Malappuram District and it caused the 1st and 2nd accused to get back with the amount to the petitioner firm. When the accused were returning back to the petitioner firm, the 2nd respondent made a regular inspection in the car bearing Registration No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner and Sri. Jose Joseph, learned standing counsel for the Income Tax Department, Government of India, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and Sri. Jestin Mathew, learned Government Pleader appearing for R2 State of Kerala. 3. It is not in dispute that the 1st respondent had earlier filed Crl.M.P. No. 248/2019 in RC No. 231/2019 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pattambi under Section 451 of Cr.P.C and under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for getting the custody of the amount seized by the 2nd respondent to the Income Tax Department, which was allowed by the learned Magistrate. It is also equally not in dispute, that aggrieved by the said order on Crl.M.P No. 479/2019 in RC No. 239/2019 rendered by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
