2015 (2) TMI 374 - HC - FEMA

Seizure of currency - cash balance found from factory premises - Held that - Currency notes constitute property of the petitioner within the meaning of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. No person can be deprived of his property save by authority of Law. There is no explanation at all as to the circumstances in which the property of the petitioner has been seized. - writ application is disposed of by directing the respondents-authorities to return the cash seized on February 22, 2011 along with interest that has accrued on the aforesaid sum of ₹ 10,00,000/- to the petitioner within a fortnight from the date of communication of this order. - Decided in favour of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure of currency by Enforcement Directorate.
2. Alleged excess cash balance in the petitioner's cash book.
3. Failure to provide explanation for the seizure.
4. Delay in court proceedings and absence of respondents.
5. Constitutional rights regarding property seizure.

Analysis:
1. The writ application was filed seeking the return of a sum of Rs. 10,50,000 seized by the Enforcement Directorate during a search at the petitioner's office premises. The seizure was made on February 22, 2011, and the petitioners claimed that the full amount was reflected in their cash book.

2. The petitioners contended that the cash balance on the day of seizure was in excess of Rs. 10,00,000, as per their cash book records. They explained that a significant amount had been withdrawn earlier for a specific purpose, yet the currency was seized without proper justification.

3. Despite the seizure and subsequent legal proceedings, there was a lack of clarity regarding the reasons behind the action taken by the authorities. The court noted that no specific allegations were made against the petitioner to warrant the search and seizure of the currency notes.

4. The legal process faced delays, with multiple adjournments and instances of the respondents failing to appear in court or provide necessary documentation. The court expressed dissatisfaction with the repeated requests for adjournment and the lack of timely submission of required affidavits.

5. In the judgment, it was emphasized that currency notes are considered the property of the petitioner under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. The court highlighted the importance of lawful authority for depriving individuals of their property and ordered the return of the seized cash along with accrued interest to the petitioner within a specified timeframe.