CHOYI K ITO Vs. SYED ABDULLA BAFAKKI THANGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two matters arise out of one and the same case. The criminal revision petition is by the Income tax Officer (Assessment) 4, Calicut and the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is by the 1st respondent in the said criminal revision petition. The criminal revision is stated to be under S.435 and 436 the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Crl. M.P. is under S.561 A. and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For the purpose of discussion, I am referring to parties as arrayed in the Criminal Revision Petition.

(2.) The facts leading to these proceedings in this court may briefly be stated as follows: At about 1 a.m. on 24-12-1970 the police on petrol duty in certain part of Calicut saw the 2nd respondent walking along the road with a bag. The police on suspicion stopped and searched him, and found that the bag with him contained Indian currency notes of 100 rupee denomination which in the aggregate came to Rs. 1,00,000/-. He was arrested under S.54 and 550 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and was produced before the Sub Magistrate I, Kozhikode. The learned Sub Magistrate remanded the accused and sent the currency notes to the Treasury for safe custody. The police had reported that at the time of the arrest the second respondent had stated that the amount belonged to one Ahammed Thangal and that he was carrying it for payment to one Sri. Koyappa at Puthuppady. On 28-12-1970 he filed CMP. No. 64/1970 for bail stating inter alia that the money seized from him actually belonged to the 1st respondent. He also filed a separate petition (which does not appear to have been numbered) praying that the amount seized from him may be made over to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent also had filed a petition Crl. M. P. 65/1970 on 28-12-1970 itself claiming that the money seized from the 2nd respondent was to be made over to him. The learned Magistrate passed orders on the petition, CMP 65/1970; to await final report in Crime No. 372/1970, the case registered against the 2nd respondent. The bail application was rejected by the learned Magistrate; but he was subsequently enlarged on bail by the Sessions Court.

(3.) In the meanwhile the revision petitioner herein had filed CMP. 1/1971 on the file of the Sub Magistrate on 1-1-1971 praying that the amount seized from the 2nd respondent represents wholly or partly property or income which had not been disclosed for purposes of Indian Income Tax Act, and therefore it may be made over to him. Later on, the Income Tax Officer (Recovery), Calicut also made a petition, CMP. 54/1971 on the file of the Sub Magistrate, stating that the 2nd respondent had been assessed to income tax to the tune of Rs. 58,501/-, a penalty of Rs. 42,900/- had also been imposed on him, and that in the aggregate a sum of Rs. 1,01,401/- is due from him. It was also prayed that the money in court deposit may be made over to him.