JAGWAT PRASAD Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Jagwat Prashad has been challaned under Section 21/25/61/85, of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as the 'Act'). The prosecution case is that on 30th August, 1991, the house of the petitioner was raided. The petitioner was present along with his family members. In one of the rooms situated at 1046, Lal Kuan, Main Bazar (IInd floor), Delhi a double bed was lying. A dirty pillow with cover was lying on the said double bed. The said pillow along with the cover was checked and a 'Khakhi envelope' was found on which in Hindi and English "Punjab National Bank, Sansad Marg, New Delhi" was printed. On checking of the same six packets of currency notes were found out of which five packets were of the denomination of Rs.100.00 each and some loose currency notes of Rs.100/ - were found total of which came to Rs.55,000.00 .' From the said cover a plastic bag containing 50 grams of Heroin was also recovered. Since the currency notes were lying in the same pillow cover where from the heroin was recovered, therefore, the raiding party seized the amount of Rs.55,000.00 treating it to be the sale proceed of drug.

(2.) It is against this seizure of Rs.55.000.00 that the petitioner moved an aplication before the learned Additional Sessions Judge asking for the release of the same on the ground that this amount was his personal money which he had collected from various sources namely:

(3.) Along with the application he filed an affidavit of Mr. Rajesh Bhatt as well as copy of form under Section 29 to show the sale of the scooter. It was his contention that since the money was his personal property, it could not have been seized. He is entitled for the refund of the same. This application was contested by the State on the ground that there 'was a presumption that this amount must be the sale proceeds of the drug sold by the petitioner because this amount was also lying in the same pillow cover wherefrom the hereoin in question was recovered. On the basis of this presumption the amount was seized. The seizure amount therefore, cannot be returned. The learned Additional Sessions Judge relying on this, rejected the application.