SATISHCHANDRA Vs. MOHAMMAD HANIF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge, Indore, for setting aside an order passed by the Magistrate, First Class, Indore, with regard to the production of certain cash amount which was seized by the police under Sections 54(1) and 550 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to this reference are these : On February 5, 1970, Sadar Bazar police seized currency notes worth Rs. 1,73,230 from the possession of the non-applicants, Mohammed Hanif, Mohammad Sharif, Abdul Aziz, Istiaque Beg and Ishaque Mohammad, while they were in a motor car No. GJB-5330 in the city of Indore. The police suspected that the currency notes were connected with the commission of some cognisable offence. After seizing this money, the police reported the matter to the Magistrate concerned for suitable orders with regard to the custody, production and disposal of this amount. Subsequently on February 10, 1970, a report was made by the police to the Magistrate that the money was no more required by them in connection with any offence. They also reported that the Income-tax Officer, namely, the non-applicants, Satischandra and Deshmukh, under the authority of warrant of authorisation from the Commissioner of Income-tax, Nagpur, for the search and seizure of some unexplained money, have seized the said money. The Income-tax Officers, according to the report of the learned Sessions Judge, were informed by the Sadar Bazar police about the seizure of this money by them and it was consequent upon this information that warrants of authorisation were obtained and the money which under the orders of the Magistrate was kept in the custody of the police, was seized by the Income-tax Officers. When the learned Magistrate considered this regort made by the police about the seizure of the money by the Income-tax Officers, a direction was given to the police to produce the currency notes for disposal under Section 523, Criminal Procedure Code. The police, thereupon, reported their inability to produce the money as it was seized by the Income-tax Officers. The Magistrate, thereupon, issued notices to the Income-tax Officers and the Commissioner of Income-tax, Nagpur, either to produce the money or to show cause why it should not be produced.

(3.) IN this court, the learned counsel appearing for the INcome-tax Officers supported the reference. Learned counsel appearing for Mohammad Hanif and others, from whose possession the money was seized, has opposed the reference on the ground that in this matter, the jurisdiction of the Magistrate for passing orders for the final disposal of the money was absolute and that the INcome-tax Officers could not, either on the report of the police or suo motu, seize the money, which was in the court's custody. I have considered these contentions in the light of the recommendations made by the learned Sessions Judge and am of the view that, this reference must be accepted for the following reasons.