MAHENDRAN Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE PARAMAKUDI TOWN CIRCLES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE criminal revision is filed under Secs. 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by one Mahendran, claiming to be the owner of the currencies to the extent of Rs. 2,06,000 seized by the first respondent inspector of Police, Paramakudi on 30. 3. 1995 in a lodge, while his so called agent and servant Abubacker was sitting in the Lodge for the purpose of his business transaction entrusted with him. THE currencies were seized on suspicion followed by registering a case under Sec. 41 of the Code of Criminal procedure and the case property was produced. Subsequently, it appears that on filing a petition under Sec. 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner, he got the temporary custody of the currencies referred to above with a condition to reproduce the same into the court, whenever he is required to do so. However, on coming to know of the said case, the enforcement Officer of the Directorate, of Enforcement, Madurai Branch the third respondent herein had filed a petition before the Judicial Magistrate for the return of the said money for the purpose of investigation, as it involved the violation of the provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA Act ). On a careful consideration of the two petitions with the objections by both parties, learned Judicial Magistrate has passed a common order in Criminal miscellaneous Petition Nos. 1880 and 2006 of 1995 on 6. 7. 1995, rejecting the claim of the third respondent herein, giving directions to the petitioner to reproduce the money, but at the same time directed the petitioner to return the money to the court custody. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner claiming to be the owner of the property has come forward with this revision and on ordering notice of motion Mr. Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the third respondent submitted that he has no objection to get himself impleaded as a party in this revision. THE contention made by learned Government Advocate on the last hearing was also the same and accordingly, the said technicality was fully complied with.

(2.) MR. G. R. Edmund, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that firstly the learned Judicial Magistrate has no jurisdiction to revise his own order passed on the earlier occasion by a subsequent order varying the same without any reasoning and secondly the petitioner had produced reliable documents viz. , copy of the Income Tax return to establish that the money in question viz. , Rs. 2,06,000 absolutely belongs to him, which was handed over to MR. Abubacker for the purpose of purchasing and selling second hand transport vehicles and which money was recovered by the first respondent during the relevant point of time on the pretext of suspicion under Sec. 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That was perhaps the reason, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner to contend that the petitioner was the genuine owner of the money and that the custody of the money was handed over to him under Sec. 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the intervening request made by the third respondent, as if the petitioner has violated the provisions of the FERA is not correct and consequently, the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, while rejecting the request made by the third respondent and directing the petitioner to reproduce the money into court is not correct and lacking every propriety and legality. Learned counsel for the petitioner, would however contend that while seizing the above quantum of money from Abubacker on the relevant date, since there was no foreign mark on the currency, the chance of violating the provisions of FERA is too remote.

(3.) IN the light of the explanation provided under Sec. 33 of the FERA, I am not in a position to countenance the arguments advanced by the Bar on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner that INdian currency does not come within the definition of Sec. 33 of the Act.