9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (6) TMI 255X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellate Board. Against that order the petitioner filed the appeal in C.M.A. 409 of 1980 under S. 54 of the Act, before this court. The said appeal was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court on 21-12-1984 (reported in 1986 Cri LJ 647 (Mad)). Against the judgment of this court in C.M.A. 409 of 1980, the respondent filed a petition for Special Leave to appeal in S.L.P. 5802 of 1985 before the Supreme Court. The said Special Leave petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 7-9-1987. In the meantime, the petitioner filed contempt Application No. 264 of 1987 before this court against the respondent for not complying with the directions by this Court in C.M.A. 409 of 1980 by returning the seized amount of ₹ 29,176/- and ₹ 10,000/-, being the penalty paid by him. Subsequently the sum of ₹ 10,000/- deposited by the petitioner as penalty and the seized amount of ₹ 29,176/- together with interest on ₹ 2493/- were refunded to the petitioner on 21-12-87. The said interest of ₹ 2493/- was allowed by the bankers on the seized amount of ₹ 29,176/- from the date of seizure till its confiscation. The Division Bench of this court which heard the cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er-affidavit contending that the seized Indian currency is not covered under section 42 of the Act and that Section 42 deals only with drafts, cheques, travellers cheques or other instruments and not the currency notes. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that Section 42 of the Act has been envisaged with the object of avoiding drafts, cheques, travellers cheques and other instruments getting invalid or stale after the prescribed period. The further case of the respondent is that the respondent could not comply with the directions given in C.M.A. 409 of 1980 immediately, because a Special Leave Petition was filed before the Supreme Court against the judgment in C.M.A. No. 409 of 1980 and that the respondent was waiting for the orders of the Supreme Court on the Special Leave Petition, and as soon as the Special Leave Petition was dismissed, the respondent complied with the directions given by this Court in C.M.A. No. 409 of 1980 by returning to the petitioner on 21-12-1987 a sum of ₹ 41,669/-. 4. The following two points arise for consideration in this writ petition :- (1) Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry notes. Section 2(f) contains an inclusive definition of 'currency' and it includes currency notes, drafts, cheques, travellers cheques etc. Though, currency notes, drafts, cheques and traveller's cheques come within the purview of the currency defined under section 2(f) of the Act, Section 42 of the Act deals only with certain specific category of currency, namely, drafts, cheques, traveller's cheque and other instruments. Section 42 of the Act does not deal with the other forms of currency like currency notes. Currency notes seized from the petitioner cannot be considered either as a draft, cheque, traveller's cheque or other instruments referred to in Section 42. Section 42(3) of the Act provides for payment of interest and Section 42(3) reads thus :- Where a direction is made under section 63 or an order has been made under the Customs Act, 1962 to confiscated any draft, cheque (including traveller's cheque) or other instrument the proceeds of which have been realised under sub-section (1), such proceeds shall vest in the Central Government and in all other cases such proceeds shall be paid to such person as may appear to the officer or the Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er section 42(1) of the Act and kept in separate account as contemplated in Section 42(2) of the Act. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 42 will not apply to currency notes, because there is no question of encashing currency notes. Thus a combined reading of sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 42 would go to show that Section 42(3) will cover only draft, cheque (including traveller's cheque) or other instruments and it will not cover currency notes. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent Section 42 of the Act has been envisaged with the object of avoiding all the drafts, cheques and traveller's cheques or other instruments getting invalid or stale after the prescribed period. Further Section 42(2) of the Act speaks about the deposit of amounts realised by way of encashment of the drafts, cheques, traveller's cheques and other instruments in a separate account to be maintained in the prescribed manner which would necessarily fetch interest. There is no provision in the Act for depositing the seized currency notes in a separate account and therefore the claim for interest on the seized currency notes from the petitioner cannot be countenanced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interest on ₹ 29,176/- seized from the petitioner, a sum of ₹ 2493/- allowed as interest by the bankers on 29-1-1976 from the date of seizer of the currency notes till the date of confiscation was also refunded to the petitioner while refunding the sum of ₹ 29,176/- seized from the petitioner and ₹ 10,000/- collected as penalty from the petitioner pursuant to the judgment in C.M.A. 409 of 1980. 7. Point No. 2 :- The next question we have to examine is, whether the respondent is justified in withholding the payment of the amount ordered to be refunded to the petitioner by the judgment of this Court in C.M.A. 409 of 1980 dated 21-12-1984 till 21-12-1987 ? Whether it is a fit case where the respondent should be directed to pay interest on the amount directed to be refunded by the judgment in C.M.A. 409 of 1980 from the date of judgment till the date of actual payment of the amount on 21-12-1987 ? This Court by the judgment in C.M.A. 409 of 1980 dated 21-12-1984 directed the respondent to refund the confiscated amount and the penalty collected from the petitioner. The sum of ₹ 29,176/- seized from the petitioner was ordered to be confiscated by the depa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of its success in the appeal before the Supreme Court. The respondent is not justified in withholding the payment of the amount ordered to be refunded to the petitioner in C.M.A. 409 of 1980 for a period of three years from the date of judgment in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and thereby deprived the petitioner from having the benefit of the amount for three years. In these circumstances, it has to be held that the withholding of the money ordered to be refunded to the petitioner, by the judgment in C.M.A. 409 of 1980, for three years without obtaining any order from the Supreme Court staying the operation of the judgment in C.M.A. 409 of 1980, is an unauthorised one and the respondent is liable to pay interest on the said amount to the petitioner. Therefore, I am inclined to hold that this is a fit case where the respondent should be directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the sum of ₹ 39,176/- ordered to be refunded to the petitioner by the judgment in C.M.A. No. 409 of 1980 for a period of three years from 21-12-1984, the date of judgment in C.M.A. 409 of 1980, up to 21-12-1987, when the amount was actually refunded to the petitioner. 8. In view o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
