TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 1230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same, is illegal. The respondents cannot continue with the possession of the currency collected from the petitioner s residence. This court is informed that respondents had after taking over possession of the currency from the residence of the petitioner proceeded to deposit the same with Canara Bank in a fixed deposit for a term of twelve months. The assumption that the cash recovered from the locked room was in the possession of the petitioner s daughter-in-law (DIL) is ex facie erroneous. It was recovered from a room that was locked and the record shows that Ms (DIL) did not have the keys to that room - the respondents are directed to refund the amount to the petitioner. To obviate any further controversy in this regard, the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... handed over by Respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 3 and thereafter, was placed in a fixed deposit. 5. The Panchnama was drawn up. The Panchnama records that one room was found locked and the petitioner s daughter-in-law, Smt. Seema Gupta, had informed the respondents that she did not have the keys to that room. During the search proceedings, the duplicate keys were made and the door of the room was opened in the presence of Smt. Seema Gupta. 6. The petitioner claims that the sum of ₹19.5 lakh was found from the said room, which was locked. 7. The Panchnama further records that Smt. Seema Gupta could not provide any justification or document for legal possession of the said cash. 8. There is a serious controversy whether t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ched the concerned respondents for seeking return of the said amount. He also contends that Smt. Seema Gupta had made a statement during the search proceedings that she did not have any documents to justify the legal possession of the cash amount. And since she was present at the premises during the search proceedings, the respondent had assumed that the cash was in her possession. 13. The assumption that the cash recovered from the locked room was in the possession of Seema Gupta (the petitioner s daughter-in-law) is ex facie erroneous. It was recovered from a room that was locked and the record shows that Ms Seema Gupta did not have the keys to that room. 14. In view of the above, we direct the respondents to refund the amount to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
