Allahabad High Court
Prabhunath Singh vs State Of U.P. on 19 January, 2023
Bench: Ajit Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 91
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1897 of 2022
Revisionist :- Prabhunath Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Upendra Kumar Mishra,A Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 13.4.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Maharajganj in Criminal Case No. 177 of 2021 (State of U.P. Vs. Prabhunath Singh) in Session Trial No. 85 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 559 of 2020 under section 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act and 18A/27A of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, P.S. Nichlaul, District Maharajganj by which the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the claim of the revisionist.
Brief facts of this case are that an amount of Rs.18,50,000/- was found by the police of P.S. Nichlaul, District Maharajganj on 15.12.2020 when they have raided the house of the revisionist and found some prohibited drugs and syrups and also found 280 grams of Ganja and when enquired the source of money then no satisfactory reply was given by the revisionist and the money was seized and that money was handed over to the Income Tax Department. The revisionist filed an application for the release of Rs.18,50,000/- in the Sessions Court and the trial court has dismissed the application for release of money of the revisionist vide order dated 13.4.2022.
Aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 13.4.2022 passed by the Sessions Court, this revision has been preferred.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist is owner of the money which was being kept by the revisionist in his house for the marriage of his daughter and the revisionist is a licence holders of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act and the police was continuously demanded illegally money from him and he has been falsely implicated in this matter. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is having his medical shop and the house in the same premises/building. The Sessions Judge has passed illegal and improper order as the money was of the revisionist and the money should have been released in favour of the revisionist and the Income Tax Department could have been informed to ask the source of the money from the revisionist. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, 2002 (10) SCC 283 in which Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the Magistrate has to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking bond and guarantee in case of valuable articles/currency note and if sample is required to be taken, sample may be kept properly after sending it to chemical analyzer.
In the present case it is not in dispute that the money was recovered from the house of the revisionist and he money should have been handed over to the revisionist or released in favour of the revisionist by the trial court after taking valuable security in regard to the money. It is the domain of the Income Tax Department to enquire source of this money from the revisionist and if the Income Tax Department does not find satisfactory reply then the Income Tax Department may impose penalty as per law.
In the result, the instant revision stands allowed and the trial court is directed to release the amount in favour of the revisionist after taking adequate security from the revisionist. The release of money in favour of the revisionist will not bar the jurisdiction of the Income Tax Department to know the source of money from the revisionist.
Order Date :- 19.1.2023
AU
