PRATAP K POTHEN Vs. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was a passenger bound for Madras from the Trivandrum domestic airport in the Jet Airways flight on October 1, 1997. After the baggage of the petitioner was screened through the screening machine at the domestic airport, the first respondent, Circle Inspector of Police, Airport Security, directed the petitioner to open the baggage. THE baggage was opened and an amount of nearly Rs. 6 lakhs which was kept in the baggage was seized by the first respondent. THEreupon, the petitioner also voluntarily disclosed to the first respondent that another amount of Rs. 5.75 lakhs is also in the possession of the petitioner and the same has been kept in the other baggage which has been sent to the cabin of the aircraft. THEn the first respondent brought the cabin baggage and the same was also opened and cash found in it namely, a sum of Rs. 5.75 lakhs was also seized by the first respondent. THE petitioner informed the first respondent that a total amount of Rs. 11.75 lakhs which is in his possession is the amount received by him from Deedi Automobiles, Trivandrum, who have purchased the 1/3rd share of the petitioner in the 36 cents of land and the building situated therein on the side of the main road near the Ayurveda College, Trivandrum. THE petitioner along with his sister who is entitled to another 1/3rd share in the aforesaid property have jointly executed exhibit P-1 agreement for a sale dated September 29, 1997, in favour of Smt. Geetha Jose Thottam, W/o T. C. Paul, who is a partner of Deedi Automobiles and the money seized reflects part of the sale consideration received under exhibit P-1. As per exhibit P-1 agreement, a total of Rs. 25 lakhs has been paid to the petitioner and his sister equally. Thus the petitioner got Rs. 12.5 lakhs out of which he has spent some amount and the balance is Rs, 11.75 lakhs. After the seizure by the first respondent, the petitioner was taken to the customs wing of the International Airport at Trivandrum on the allegation that the money possessed by the petitioner was foreign money (?). THE petitioner was questioned by the customs officers and the petitioner explained to them that the possession of the aforesaid amount, viz., Rs. 11.75 lakhs, by him is absolutely legal and proper. After accepting the explanation furnished by the petitioner, the first respondent was told by the customs officers that they have no intention to proceed against him and subsequently the petitioner was brought to the domestic airport by the first respondent. However, the customs officers informed the Income-tax Department that the petitioner has been detained with the possession of a sum of Rs. 11.75 lakhs. THEreupon, the Income-tax Officers came to the domestic airport at Trivandrum and took possession of the entire amount of Rs. 11.75 lakhs possessed by the petitioner on the basis of exhibit P-2 panchanama. Copy of exhibit P-1 was also seized by the Income-tax Officers on the basis of exhibit P-2. Exhibit P-3 is the news item which appeared in English and Malayalam dailies, relating to this incident. Though several requests were made by the petitioner for the return of the money seized from him to respondents Nos. 2 and 3, they did not elicit any satisfactory response. On October 22, 1997, the petitioner submitted exhibit P-4 representation before the second respondent, Commissioner of Income-tax, requesting him to transfer the amount of Rs. 11.75 lakhs seized from the petitioner to the file of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-IV, Chennai, for adjusting the same amount towards the tax arrears due from the petitioner. THE request contained in exhibit P-4 has been rejected as per exhibit P-5 communication by which he was informed "that the seizure of cash has been made in connection with the search in the case of Deedi Automobiles, Trivandrum, and that this cash has been seized as the undisclosed income of Deedi Automobiles. THErefore, there is no need to transfer this amount to the P. D. account of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamilnadu-IV, Chennai." Under the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner has moved this court with the present writ petition for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash exhibit P-5 and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to return to the petitioner the amount of Rs. 11.75 lakhs seized from him on October 1, 1997, from the domestic airport at Trivandrum with "market rate interest" from October 1, 1997, till date of payment and for other incidental reliefs.

(2.) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 and 3, the plea set up is that they have reasons to believe that the money seized from the petitioner forms part of the undisclosed income of Deedi Automobiles and since Deedi Automobiles is being proceeded against, the money cannot be released to the petitioner till the proceedings are completed.

(3.) FOR the aforesaid reasons, I allow this original petition and quash exhibit P-5 as prayed for. There will be a further direction to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 either to return to the petitioner the amount of Rs. 11.75 lakhs seized from him on October 1, 1997, at the domestic airport at Trivandrum or to adjust the said amount towards arrears of income-tax due from the petitioner on the file of the Income-tax Officer, Film Ward-II, Chennai. This shall be done forthwith, at any rate, not later than one month from today. The amount of Rs. 11.75 lakhs will bear interest at the rate of 19.5 per cent, from the date of seizure till payment.