9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder 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 seized the said cash and produced the same before the Court and on his requisition, the said amount has been deposited in the Corporation Bank. Subsequently, the Sub Inspector of Police, who took up the investigation has filed a final report dated 19.01.2004 stating that the case was referred as "further action dropped" and the final report was accepted by the Court. 2. At this juncture, the petitioner/accused has filed Crl.M.P.No.167 of 2004, stating that the said amount was kept by him for business purpose and during investigation police detected nothing against him. Dur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rdered 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. Aggrieved by the said order, the Income Tax Department, has filed the above revision. 7. The highly competent senior Special Public Prosecutor argued that ordering to return only part of the seized amount is contrary to law and facts of the case. As per Section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Income Tax Department is empowered to enquire into the unexplained cash seized from the first respondent and had assessed the same in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further, the return of cash of Rs.5,30,000/- to the accused is illegal. Actually ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tent counsel appearing for the revision petitioner further contended that the learned Magistrate erred in splitting the seized amount and returning a part of the amount to the Department and a part of the amount to the first respondent herein. Actually, the police officer has to hand over the seized amount to the Income Tax Department. Hence, the highly competent senior Special Public Prosecutor, Mr.K.Ramasamy entreats the Court to set-aside the trial Court's order. 9. The very competent counsel for the first respondent vehemently argued that the seized amount has to be restored to the first respondent herein, who is an income tax assessee. The complainant i.e., Sub Inspector of Police had seized the amount and registered the case under Cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 money. The Income Tax Authorities also have to conduct an enquiry and then only could the matter be decided. Now, a part of seized amount has been handed over to the accused, as interim custody, with a stringent condition that he has to return the money to the Court as and when required. Therefore, the entire amount rests permanently under the custody of the Court and hence, the revision is not maintainable against the interim order. Further, no one will be prejudiced on the strength of the interim order passed by the learned Magistrate. The complainant has registered a criminal cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
