Telangana High Court

Neena Kamlesh Shah vs The Station House Officer on 22 February, 2024

         * HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

               + WRIT PETITION No.35167 of 2023

% Date: 22.02.2024

Between:

Neena Kamlesh Shah.                                  ... Petitioner

                                AND

The Station House Officer,
Waddepally Police Station, Nalgonda District
and others.
                                                    ... Respondents

! Counsel for the Petitioner    : Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana
                                   learned Senior Counsel for
                                   M/s. Bharadwaj Associates


^ Counsel for Respondents        : Government Pleader for Home


> HEAD NOTE:


? Cases referred

1) 2020 SCC OnLine TS 3047
2) (2012) 6 SCC 760
                                        ::2::


            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

                   WRIT PETITION No.35167 of 2023
ORDER:

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, is filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief:

"....to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring that the action of the respondent police and registering the Crime in F.I.R.No.216 of 2023 dated 15.10.2023 (in the Court of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Miryalaguda) without any substantial penal provisions indicated therein, is arbitrary and illegal and contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in 1982 (1) page 561 para 21 and 65 and resultantly quash the said F.I.R. and direct the respondent police to return the seized cash of Rupees 3 Crores and 4 Lakhs to the petitioner and grant such other relief as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case."

2. The petitioner claims to be owner of Cash of Rs.3,04,00,000

(Rupees three crores four lakhs) which was transported in KIA Car

bearing No.TS 10 FD 0643 on 15.10.2023 and the Respondent No.1,

intercepted the movement of the said car and seized the said cash

under a cover of panchanama and thereafter, a case in Crime No.216

of 2023 was registered against Vipul Kumar Bhai and Amarsinh

Zala, for the offences under Sections 336 IPC, 102 Cr.P.C, 179 r/w

52 r/w 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "M.V.Act").

The case of the petitioner is that alleged offence under Section 336

IPC relates to rash and negligent driving only and there is no penal

provision prohibiting transportation of cash whatsoever

denomination. Therefore, the petitioner prayed this Court to quash

the said FIR and return the cash to her.

::3::

3. This Court vide order dated 12.01.2024 while issuing notice to

the respondents, in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of

this Court in Mectec vs. Director of Income Tax Investigation 1

granted interim direction to the respondent-police to release the

seized cash of Rs.3,04,00,000/- in F.I.R.No.216 of 2023 dated

15.10.2023 to the petitioner, pending disposal of the writ petition.

4. The Circle Inspector of Police, Miryalaguda Rural Circle,

Nalgonda District, filed counter affidavit on behalf of respondents,

inter alia stating that on 15.10.2023 at 08:29 hours, while he was

present in the Police Station, Sri K.Naresh Kumar, Sub-Inspector of

Police of Madgulapally Police Station, Nalgonda District, along with

other staff, came to Police Station and lodged a complaint, which

reads as follows:

"On 15-10-2023 at 05.30 hours while he along with staff were conducting the vehicle checking at NAM Toll Plaza in the outskirts of Madgulapally village in view of Assembly Elections-2023. In the mean time one KIA car bearing No. TS 10 FD 0643 was proceeding towards Miryalaguda from Nalgonda. Accordingly, they tried to stop the said vehicle for check, but driver of the said vehicle drove the vehicle with high speed in suspicious manner. As such, complainant chased the said vehicle at Interstate Border check post at Wadapally village and detained the driver and one other person. On his enquiry they disclosed their details as, 1) Vipul Kumar Bhai, aged 46 years, Occ: Driver, R/o Musheerabad, Native of Amhadabad, Gujarath State, and 2)Amarsinh Zala, aged 52 years, Occ: Driver, R/o Mahesena, Gujarat State and also he found Rupees 3.04 core in their possession. They didn't have any

2020 SCC OnLine TS 3047 ::4::

relevant documents pertaining to the cash. As such the complainant conducted seizure in presence of the two mediators and seized 3.04 core rupees and one vehicle bearing No. TS10 FD 0643 under cover of panchanama. Hence requested for taking necessary action into the matter.

Basing on the above written report and seizure Panchanama, he

registered a case in Crime No.216/2023, for the offences under

Sections 336 IPC, 102 Cr.P.C., 179, 52 r/w 177 of Motor Vehicles

Act, on 15.10.2023 at 08:29 hours. It is further stated that as per

the investigation done and as per the record, he intimated to the

Returning Officer (Revenue Divisional Officer, Miryalaguda) about

registration of Crime and seizure of cash, on 19.10.2023 and

submitted requisition to the II Additional Judicial First Class

Magistrate, at Miryalaguda on 19.10.2023 to accord permission for

depositing seized amount through Form No.60 and the learned

Magistrate vide Docket Order dated 19.10.2023 directed to deposit

the cash before the District Collector as the cash has been seized

during the Election Code in operation. Subsequently, the seized cash

was deposited with the District Treasury Officer, Nalgonda on

20.10.2023 and the Sub-Treasury Officer has issued Receipt No.211,

dated 20.10.2023. Thereafter, the C.I. of Police addressed a Letter

dated 20.10.2023 requesting the Income Tax Officer, Nalgonda to

take necessary action on the seized amount. In pursuance of the said

letter, the Income Tax Officer, Ward-I & District Nodal Officer,

Nalgonda vide letter dated 25.10.2023 informed that he was ::5::

authorized by the Principal Director of Income Tax, Hyderabad, to

seize the cash and requested to hand over the cash. Based on the

said letter, the C.I. of Police vide letter dated 25.10.2023 requested

the District Treasury Officer, Nalgonda to hand over the seized cash

for onward transmission to the Income Tax Department. On

26.10.2023, Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Nalgonda along with

Warrant of Authorization under Section 132 of Income Tax Act, 1961

(for short "I.T.Act") dated 23.10.2023 and two panchas visited the

District Treasury Office, Nalgonda, prepared Inventory of Cash of

Rs.3.04 crore and seized the same under cover of Panchanama and

handed over copy of Panchanama. It is further stated that in

compliance with the interim orders passed by this Court, the C.I. of

Police addressed a letter dated 27.01.2024 to the Income Tax Officer,

Ward-I, Nalgonda, informing about the interim orders passed by this

Court. Thereupon, the Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Nalgonda

addressed a letter dated 29.01.2024 to the Deputy Director of Income

Tax-I(2), Aayakar Bhavan, Hyderabad. On 30.01.2024, the C.I. of

Police addressed another letter requesting the Income Tax Officer,

Nalgonda to inform about the action taken for releasing the seized

cash, as directed by this Court. Pursuant to the said letter, the

Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Nalgonda has again addressed letter

dated 30.1.2024 to the Deputy Director of Income Tax-I (2), Aayakar

Bhavan, Hyderabad. In response to the letter dated 30.01.2024 ::6::

addressed by the C.I. of Police and the letter dated 30.01.2024

addressed by the Income Tax Officer, the Deputy Director of Income

Tax (Inv), Unit-1(2), Hyderabad has issued a Letter bearing

F.No.DDIT(Inv)/Unit-I(2)/Misc/2023-24, dated 31.01.2024 to the

Circle Inspector of Police, Miryalaguda Rural, Nalgonda District,

stating that seizure of amount of Rs.3,04,00,000/- which was found

in the vehicle bearing No.TS 10 FD 0643 belongs to Shivam Modi.

Subsequently, summons under Section 131 of I.T.Act were issued to

the parties along with the vehicle owner Shivam Modi to explain the

source for the seized cash of Rs.3,04,00,000/-. The parties neither

complied with the summons nor submitted any details/documentary

evidence to substantiate the source for the cash found in their

possession. In absence of any documentary evidence, the cash of

Rs.3,04,00,000/- was requisitioned from the police authorities by

executing warrant of authorization under Section 132A of I.T.Act on

26.10.2023. On the same day i.e, on 26.10.2023, the seized cash

was deposited in the PD account of the Principal Director of Income

Tax, Hyderabad and Form TR-6 has been obtained in the name of Sri

Vipul Kumar Ramanlal Patel and Sri Amarsinh Zala. It is further

stated in the counter affidavit that during the post search

proceedings, the assessees were given another opportunity vide

summons under Section 132 of I.T Act dated 29.11.2023 and

30.12.2023 to explain the source for the cash found in their ::7::

possession. However, the assessee has not availed any opportunities

given and hence the cash found in their possession is treated as

unexplained money. Accordingly, the report in that regard was

forwarded to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer on 08.01.2024 for

completing further proceedings in the case of Sri Vipul Kumar

Ramanlal Patel and Sri Amarsinh Zala as per the provisions of I.T.

Act. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that since the amount

seized by the respondents-police while intercepting the vehicle

bearing No.TS 10 FD 0643 was handed over to the designated Nodal

Officer as per the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for seizure

and release of cash and other items issued by the Election

Commission of India vide No.464/Seizure/GE-Las/2021/EEPS dated

19.08.2021, now the amount has been kept in the PD Account of the

Principal Director of Income Tax, Hyderabad. It is further stated that

they have already issued notices as required under Section 41A

Cr.P.C to the drivers of the vehicle and other accused in Crime

No.216 of 2023 and recorded their statements in the presence of

mediators. It is also stated that both the accused confessed that

Modi Shivam is the owner of the crime vehicle and they are working

under him as drivers for a monthly salary and were transporting the

cash of Rs.3.04 Crores to Chennai. It is further stated that

respondents have followed the SOP issued by the Election

Commission of India and also obtained the permission from the ::8::

concerned Court under Section 102 Cr.P.C and the seized cash was

already deposited with the Income Tax Department and notices

under Section 131 of I.T. Act were also issued and after conducting

enquiry it was found that seized cash is an unexplained money and

therefore, the respondents prayed this Court to vacate the interim

order dated 12.01.2024 passed by this Court and ultimately, dismiss

the writ petition.

5. Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel

representing M/s.Bharadwaj Associates, for the petitioner has

submitted that the amount seized by the police under cover of

panchanama is totally unauthorised and there is no penal provision

prohibiting the transfer of cash whatsoever denomination. It is

further contended that as per Section 102 Cr.P.C, any police officer

may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have

been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which

create suspicion of the commission of any offence. Such police

officer, if subordinate to the officer-in-charge of a police station, shall

forthwith report the seizure to that officer. Every police officer acting

under Sub-Section (1) shall forthwith report the seizure to the

Magistrate having jurisdiction and where the property seized is such

that it cannot be, conveniently transported to the Court or where

there is difficulty in securing proper accommodation for the custody

of such property, or where the continued retention of the property in ::9::

police custody may not be considered necessary for the purpose of

investigation, he may give custody thereof to any person on his

executing a bond undertaking to produce the property before the

Court as and when required and to give effect to the further orders of

the Court as to the disposal of the same. It is further submitted that

the respondents having seized the cash of the petitioner from the car

uauthorizedly, has not deposited the same into the Court by

following the procedure prescribed under Section 102 Cr.P.C. As

such withholding of the cash by the respondents is illegal and

unauthorised. It is further submitted that since the offences alleged

against the petitioner is only relating to negligent driving and

violation of provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, the respondents-police

are not having any power or authority to seize the cash as no offence

has been committed and carrying the cash does not amount to any

offence. The learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the decision of

the Division Bench of this Court in Mectec vs. Director of Income

Tax Investigation (supra) and submitted that Section 132 of I.T.Act

deals with procedure for search and seizure of cash or gold or

jewellery or other valuable things. The said Section contemplates

that the competent authority in consequence of information in his

possession must have 'reason to believe' inter alia that a person is in

possession of cash etc., and such cash represents either wholly or

partly income which has not been or would not be disclosed for the ::10::

purpose of the Act and he may authorize another Officer of the

Department lower in rank to enter and search any building etc.,

where he has reason to suspect that books of account or other

documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or

thing are kept and seize the same. It is further submitted that there

were no circumstances existing for the Principal Director of Income

Tax (INV), Hyderabad to issue any warrant for search or seizure

under Section 132 of the Act, when the cash had been handed over

to the Income Tax Department by the Task Force Police on

26.10.2023 and therefore the seizure of the cash from the petitioner

by the respondents and its retention till date by them is per se illegal.

The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that under the guise

of implementing electoral restrictions, the trading activities of

tradesmen and the normal pursuit of life by the citizens are brought

under the control of the Election Commission of India. It is

contended that implementation of the impugned instructions

amounts to violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under

Articles 19(1)(d) and 19(1)(g) of Constitution of India. According to

the learned Senior Counsel, for mere possession of money or goods

in trade, an F.I.R cannot be lodged. It is further submitted that there

is no acceptable manner of procedure contemplated to ascertain the

purpose of the seizure or for its return. Thus the learned Senior

Counsel prayed this Court to declare the action of the respondents in ::11::

registering the Crime No.216/2023 and seizing the cash of the

petitioner under cover of panchanama and retaining the same till

date as arbitrary, illegal and consequently, direct the respondents to

release the cash to the petitioner forthwith. In support of his

submissions, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon the decision of

Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.T.Enrica Lexie and another vs.

Doramma and others 2.

6. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Home

appearing for the respondents has submitted that the respondents

have strictly followed the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for

seizure and release of cash and other items issued by the Election

Commission of India by exercising the power under Article 324 of the

Constitution of India. It is further submitted that as per the SOP, the

seized cash was already deposited with the Income Tax Department

and the Income Tax Department by following the procedure has

issued notice under Section 131 of I.T.Act to the parties to explain

the source for the seized cash of Rs.3,04,00,000/-. The parties

neither complied with the summons nor submitted any

details/documentary evidence to substantiate the source for the cash

found in their possession and hence the cash found in their

possession is treated as unexplained money. There is no illegality or

irregularity in the action of respondents warranting interference by

(2012) 6 SCC 760 ::12::

this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The present

writ petition is misconceived and ultimately prayed to dismiss the

writ petition.

7. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the

respective counsel and perused the record.

8. It is the case of the petitioner that respondents without having

any power or authority have seized the cash from the vehicle bearing

No.TS 10 FD 0643, which is illegal, arbitrary and unauthorized. It is

further case of the petitioner that respondents have not followed the

procedure as contemplated under Section 102 Cr.P.C and reported

the seizure to the concerned Magistrate. It is also case of the

petitioner that the act of respondents-police in seizing the cash from

the said vehicle is illegal and they are not having any power or

authority to seize cash and inform the same to the I.T. Department.

It is further case of the petitioner that soon after the completion of

Election Code, the respondents ought to have returned the cash to

her. It is further contended that depositing the amount with the I.T

Department amounts to unauthorisedly exercising the power and if

any person is having unexplained money, the I.T Department has to

take appropriate action during the period of relevant assessment

year but they cannot seize the amount from the possession of the

petitioner or third party at the instance of the respondents-police ::13::

and thereafter initiate an enquiry, which is unknown to procedure.

Therefore, the petitioner sought to quash the FIR No.216/2023 and

consequently, direct the police to return the cash to her.

9. Whereas the case of the respondents is that Election

Commission of India while exercising the powers under Article 324 of

the Constitution of India vide No.464/Seizure/GE-Las/2021/EEPS

dated 19.08.2021 has issued instructions to the Chief Electoral

Officers of all the States prescribing the Standard Operating

Procedure for seizure and release of cash and other items during

currency of elections and subsequent letters issued after completion

of elections regarding release of cash and articles seized during

elections having no link with any candidate/his or her agent/party

worker, where no FIR has been lodged or not handed over to the

Income Tax Department. Following the circular instructions issued

by the Election Commission of India, during the Election Code in

operation in the State of Telangana, the respondent No.1 seized the

cash from the vehicle bearing No.TS 10 FD 0643 on 15.10.2023 at

5:30 hours under cover of panchanama and registered a case in

Crime No.216/2023 for the offences under Sections 336 IPC, 102

Cr.P.C., 179, 52 r/w 177 of M.V.Act. Soon after seizure of the cash,

the concerned police filed a requisition before the II Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Miryalaguda, and the said Court

vide docket order dated 19.10.2023 directed to deposit the seized ::14::

cash before the District Collector as the cash has been seized during

the Election Code in operation. Subsequently, the seized cash was

deposited with the District Treasury Officer, Nalgonda on 20.10.2023

and the Sub-Treasury Officer has issued Receipt No.211, dated

20.10.2023. After following the procedure prescribed by the Election

Commission of India, the seized amount was deposited with the

Income Tax Department. Thus it is the case of the respondents that

they have followed the procedure prescribed by the Election

Commission of India and therefore, there is no illegality in seizing the

cash and depositing the same with the Income Tax Department.

10. Before going into the factual aspects of the matter, it is

necessary to discuss the powers of Election Commission of India to

issue Model Code of Conduct/Standard Operating Procedure for

seizing of the cash, distribution of cash or liquor or any other item

during the election period. It is settled preposition of law that the

general power of superintendence, direction, control and conduct of

election is vested in the Election Commission under Article 324 of

the Constitution of India. The words superintendence, control,

direction as well as conduct of all elections are broadest terms.

Article 324(1) of the Constitution of India, confers residual power to

the Commission relating to the electoral process and it empowers the

Commission to issue all directions necessary for the purpose of

conducting smooth, free and fair elections and for this purpose, ::15::

Article 324(1) is to be construed liberally. Apart from the powers

conferred by the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 and the Rules

made thereunder, the Election Commission has ample power under

Article 324(1) itself to make appropriate orders as to the conduct of

election. Hence, the Election Commission has powers to issue

directions in the process of conducting elections to the effect that the

political parties shall submit to the Commission for its scrutiny the

details of the expenditure incurred or authorized by the political

parties in connection with election of their representative candidates.

11. The Election Commission of India while exercising such powers

has issued instructions from time to time to the Chief Electoral

Officers of all the States/Union Territories, for conducting smooth,

free and fair elections which is the basic element to elect democratic

form of Government uninfluenced by any sort of undue influence.

The Election Commission of India while exercising the powers under

the provisions of Representation of Peoples Act, has issued Standard

Operating Procedure for dealing with unaccounted cash and other

valuables. According to the instructions, if cash is being carried with

proper documents or if it is for any other purpose and the person

carrying those valuables satisfies the officers conducting the search

and seizure, then those valuables shall be returned to the owner

forthwith. It is well settled law that the duty of the Election

Commission, inter alia, is to prevent distribution of money to the ::16::

public and the Commission should take all steps to curb those

activities. The election being a very important event for the State, the

Election Commission has to maintain law and order to ensure free

and fair election and also curb the malpractices. In view of the

powers being conferred on the Election Commission of India under

Article 324 of the Constitution of India and also Representation of

Peoples Act, 1951, this Court is of the opinion that prescribing the

Standard Operating Procedure by the Election Commission of India

does not amount to violation of any fundamental rights guaranteed

under Article 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution of India. Admittedly,

in this case, the respondents have seized the cash of

Rs.3,04,00,000/- from the vehicle bearing No.TS 10 FD 0643 and

obtained necessary permission from the concerned Magistrate under

Section 102 Cr.P.C and by following the circular instructions issued

under Clause 16 of the Standard Operating Procedure by the

Election Commission of India, has deposited the seized amount with

the Income Tax Department. Clause 16 of the order dated

29.05.2015 vide File No.76/Instructions/EEPS/ 2015/Vol-II issued

by the Election Commission of India, reads as follows:

16. Release of Cash

(i) In order to avoid inconvenience to the public and genuine persons and also for redressal of their grievances, if any, a committee shall be formed comprising three officers of the District, namely, (i) CEO, Zila Parishad/CDO/P.D.DRDA (iⅱ) Nodal Officer of Expenditure Monitoring in the District Election Office (Convenor) and (iii) District Treasury Officer.

::17::

The Committee shall suo-motu examine each case of seizure made by the Police or SST or FS and where the Committee finds that no FIR/Complaint has been filed against the seizure or where the seizure is not linked with any candidate or political party or any election campaign etc., as per Standard Operating Procedure it shall take immediate step to order release of such cash etc., to such persons from whom the cash was seized after passing a speaking order to that effect. The Committee shall look into all cases and take decision on seizure.

(ii) The procedure of appeal against seizure should be mentioned in the seizure document and it should also be informed to such persons at the time of seizure of cash. The functioning of this committee should be given wide publicity, including telephone no. of the convenor of the Committee.

(iii) All the information pertaining to release of cash, shall be maintained by the Nodal Officer expenditure monitoring in a register, serially date wise with the details regarding amount of Cash intercepted/seized and date of release to the person(s) concerned.

(iv) If the release of cash is more than Rs 10 (Ten) Lac, the nodal officer of Income Tax shall be kept informed before the release is effected.

12. Since the respondents have followed the Standard Operating

Procedure for seizure and release of cash and other items prescribed

by the Election Commission of India and informed the seizure of the

cash to the Income Tax Department vide letter dated 20.10.2023 and

the Nodal Officer/Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, who has been

authorized by the Principal Director of Income Tax, Hyderabad, has

seized the cash under a cover of panchanama and also issued

notices under Section 131 of I.T.Act to the owner of the crime vehicle

from where the alleged cash was seized and as the Income Tax

Department has followed the procedure contemplated under Sections ::18::

131 and 132 of I.T.Act, there is no illegality in seizure of cash and

depositing the same in the P.D. Account of the Principal Director of

Income Tax, Hyderabad.

13. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has

placed much reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in

M.T.Enrica Lexie and another vs. Doramma and others (supra).

In the instant case, respondents have followed the procedure in

seizing the cash during the Election Code in operation and

thereafter, reported to the concerned Magistrate under Section 102

Cr.P.C and obtained necessary permission. Therefore, the aforesaid

judgment relied upon by the petitioner is not applicable to the facts

of the case.

14. In the case of M/s.Mectec vs Director of Income Tax (supra),

relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for petitioner, the Division

Bench of this Court directed to release of the amount which was

seized on the information being furnished to the task force of the

Income Tax Department under Section 132 of the I.T. Act as it was

unaccounted money. It was further held that the Income Tax

authorities are not having any power for issuance of warrant of

attachment of the seized cash. Challenging the judgment rendered

by the Division Bench of this Court, a Special Leave to Appeal (C)

No.2049/2021 was preferred on the file of Hon'ble Supreme Court ::19::

and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 31.08.2021 has

granted stay of operation of the aforesaid judgment. Therefore, the

decision in M/s.Mectec vs Director of Income Tax (supra), is not

helpful to the case of the petitioner.

15. In the present case, the petitioner claims to be owner of the

cash but the crime was registered against the drivers of the vehicle

bearing No.TS 10 FD 0643 and the petitioner was not arrayed as

accused in the subject Crime No.216/2023. Except claiming that

she is the owner of the cash and that the respondents have

unauthorisedly seized the cash, the petitioner has not placed any

document in support of her contention that she is owner of the cash

and that the respondents have unauthorisedly seized the cash.

Further, the records reveal that respondents-police after registration

of Crime No.216/2023 have followed the procedure under Section

102 of Cr.P.C and after obtaining necessary permission deposited the

amount with the Nodal Officer and thereafter, the said amount was

handed over to the Income Tax Department and notices were issued

to the owner of the crime vehicle from where the amount was seized

and the same was deposited in the P.D Account of the Principal

Director of Income Tax, Hyderabad vide Form No.TR-6. In view of the

same, as the petitioner is not arrayed as an accused and as the

respondents have followed the procedure under Section 102 of

Cr.P.C and also handed over the seized cash to the I.T Department ::20::

as per the SOP issued by the Election Commission of India, there is

no illegality or irregularity in seizing the cash from the vehicle

bearing No.TS 10 FD 0643.

16. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is not inclined to quash

the FIR No.216 of 2023 on the file of respondent No.1 and to grant

the consequential relief of releasing the amount seized under cover of

panchanama.