Gujarat High Court
Manojkumar Chaganbhai Gondaliya vs State Of Gujarat on 17 March, 2023
Bench: Samir J. Dave
R/SCR.A/11722/2021 ORDER DATED: 17/03/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 11722 of 2021
==========================================================
MANOJKUMAR CHAGANBHAI GONDALIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR K S CHANDRANI(6674) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS MH BHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE
Date : 17/03/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of
notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent no.1-State.
2. By way of present application, the applicant has
requested to issue direction for releasing the muddamal
currency notes worth of Rs. 2,03,800/- seized by the
Investigating officer pursuant to the offence registered with
Gondal City Police Station, Rajkot being CR NO. I-
11213015201549 of 2020.
3. Heard learned advocate for the applicant as well as
learned APP for the respondent no.1-State.
4. It was submitted by learned advocate for the applicant
that in connection with offence registered with Gondal City
Police Station, Rajkot being CR NO. I-11213015201549 of
R/SCR.A/11722/2021 ORDER DATED: 17/03/2023
2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 3(1)/(1 and
(2), 3(2), 3(4) and 3(5) of the Gujarat Control of Terrorism
and Organized Crime Act 2015, the investigating officer seized
muddamal currency notes from the residence of the present
applicant. That, the father of the applicant was suffering from
cancer and therefore, applicant used to keep such cash at
home for his treatment and his medical expenses and thereof
such amount was lying at the house of the applicant.
5. It was further submitted by learned advocate for the
applicant that applicant preferred application being CRMA No.
521 of 2021 before the concerned trial court for releasing
muddamal currency note but the same was rejected. That, the
father of the applicant was expired. That, illegal custody of the
said property would amount to violation of the said right. That,
keeping the currency notes for an indefinite time is unjust
unfair and also against the directions given by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of Sunderlal Ambalal Desai V. state of
Gujarat and other judgments as well as this Hon'ble Court in
series of judgments, time and again and hence, the same is
unconstitutional and hence, the muddamal currency notes may
be released and directed to be handed over to the applicant.
6. On the other side, learned APP for the respondent no.1-
State has strongly objected the submissions made by learned
R/SCR.A/11722/2021 ORDER DATED: 17/03/2023
advocate for the applicant and submitted that the applicant is
involved in the serious offence and the amount is pertaining to
the crime proceeds and it was the applicant who had
purchased the agricultural land at village Segpur Ta:
Ankleshwar along with main accused Nikhil Donga and the
sale deed was executed in the name of the present applicant as
well as his father. That the sale price of the said land was
given by the main accused and hence, it was submitted by
learned APP for the respondent-State has requested to reject
present application.
7. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties
as well as perusing the order passed by learned trial court
while rejecting the application filed by the applicant for
releasing the muddamal currency notes, it appears that
muddamal currency notes were seized by the investigating
officer in connection with offence registered with Gondal City
Police Station, Rajkot being CR NO. I-11213015201549 of
2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 3(1)/(1 and
(2), 3(2), 3(4) and 3(5) of the Gujarat Control of Terrorism
and Organized Crime Act 2015 and as per say of the applicant,
he had a need of money and thus, he had approached the
learned trial court with a request to release muddamal
currency notes but the said request was rejected.
R/SCR.A/11722/2021 ORDER DATED: 17/03/2023
8. While rejecting the application of the applicant for
releasing the muddamal, learned trial court has clearly
observed that ACP Jetpur Division, Jetpur has submitted his
report vide Ex. 4 stating that amount of Rs. 2,03,800/- has
been seized from the present applicant and during the course
of investigation, it has come on record that the applicant and
his father are the owners of the agricultural land situated at
village Segpur Ta: Ankleshwar District Bharuch and the
amount of sale price of the said land was paid by accused
Nikhil Donga from his crime proceeds and thus, it can be
assumed that the applicant may not have proof when the
amount was seized by the Investigating Officer from his house,
however, he could have easily told the I.O. about the source
and purpose of the said amount. In the conclusion of the said
order, learned trial court has specifically mentioned that
money may be pertaining to crime proceeds and the applicant
may be associated with the main accused Nikhil Donga.
9. Thus, while considering the observations made by
learned trial court, this court is of the view that of course it the
fundamental right to keep the amount by citizen of India with
him but when such amount is connected with any crime and
no sufficient explanation was given for lying such amount then
court has to consider the prima facie fact and in the present
R/SCR.A/11722/2021 ORDER DATED: 17/03/2023
case, once the applicant has mentioned in this application that
the said amount was lying for the treatment of his father but
on the otherside, before the trial court, while producing the
report by ACP Jetpur it has been disclosed that the applicant
and his father are the owners of the agricultural land situated
at village Segpur Ta: Ankleshwar District Bharuch and the
amount of sale price of the said land was paid by accused
Nikhil Donga from his crime proceeds and at the time of
seizing such amount, he could have easily told the I.O. about
the source and purpose of the said amount.
10. Thus, while considering aforesaid facts and
circumstances, this court is not inclined to accept the prayer
made by the applicant and accordingly, present application
stands rejected.
Rule stands discharged.
(SAMIR J. DAVE,J)
K. S. DARJI
