INCOME-TAX OFFICER 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)IV,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 sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Crl.M.P.is under sections 561A 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 December 24,1970,the police on patrol 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 sections 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 2nd 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 December 28,1970,he filed C.M.P.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 ever to the 1st respondent.The 1st respondent also had filed a petition,Crl.M.P.No.65/1970,on December 28,1970,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,C.M.P.No.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.) ON November 20,1971,the police submitted the final report in Crime No.372 of 1970 referring the case as one of mistake of fact.The reference report was to the effect that the 2nd respondent had not committed any offence and that the money seized from him actually belonged to the 1st respondent.