CHANDRAKANT KISHANCHAND THAKWANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Service of Rule waived by Mr. M. A. Bukhara, learned A.P.P. for the State.

(2.) The petitioner herein, who happens to be one of the accused in A. C. B. Entry No. 1 of 1991 (Janva-jog), moved an application for return of Rs. 42,314/- seized from him, before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 17, Ahmedabad, on 20/01/1992. The learned Magistrate passed the following order on 20/01/1992 : 'Asstt. Director of A. C. B. Ahmedabad to report on following point and to remain present with all the papers for being of the application on 27-1-1992 : (1) From whom the muddamal is seized? (2) Whether any offence is detected in regard of the muddamal ? If yes. What is the offence ? (3) Whether the muddamal be returned to the applicant ? Comply without fail. Issue necessary to the Asstt. Director and learned A. P. P. Fixed for hearing on 27-1-1992." It appears that thereafter the parties were heard on the question of return of muddamal currency notes in the sum of Rs. 42,314.00 After hearing, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 2, passed order dated 22-4-1992 rejecting the petitioner's application. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was working on behalf of some institution in the District of Mehsana and the amount was received by the petitioner by way of an assistance or by way of donation for using the same for the purpose of a seminar to be conducted for that institution. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that no offence was committed by the petitioner and that no offence was made out against him. It was, therefore, prayed on behalf of the petitioner that upon furnishing of the bond for the amount of the currency notes of Rs. 42,314.00, the muddamal currency notes should be returned to the petitioner.

(3.) As against this, it was submitted on behalf of the rosecuting agency that the investigation was pending. Some statements were yet to be recorded. One Chandrakant was avoiding the process for the purpose of giving his statement, whereas one Kesharisinh and Mangalsinh were not available for the purpose of recording their statements during the course of the investigation. It appeared from the material available till then that the accused persons had attempted to commit offence of cheating. It was further submitted on behalf of the prosecuting agency that some offence of a serious nature was likely to be disclosed from the investigation which was in progress and at the stage of investigation the muddamal amount of Rs. 42,314.00 should not be handed over to the petitioner.