SIDDHARTH BANTHIA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal was taken up for hearing along with Criminal Appeal No. 760 of 2005. Thereafter on conclusion of the hearing of CRA No. 760 of 2005, as none appeared for appellant the appeal came to be adjourned in order to give fair opportunity to the appellant to appear before this Court and argue the appeal, but none appeared in spite of repeated opportunity being given. In view of the fact that the appellant failed to prosecute the appeal, we propose to dispose it of along with CRA No. 760 of 2005 with the assistance of the learned Public Prosecutor on merits.

(2.) The original complainant has preferred this appeal aggrieved by the decision of the learned Sessions Judge in S.C. No. 13 of 2004 wherein by judgment and order dated 30th and 31st August, 2005, the learned Trial Court ordered confiscation of 4,000 US$ ( Mat. Ext. XIV and XIV/1) seized from the house of one Rajpal Singh of Ludhiana, Punjab. It is the contention of the appellant that the learned Trial Judge without assigning any reason whatsoever directed that the seized US Dollar being (Mat Ext. XIV and XIV/1) confiscated to the State, though it found that the accused Monojot Raju Sood @ Manjit Raju Sood was guilty of having committed offences under Sections 489A, 489B, 489C and 420 of Indian Penal Code. It is the contention of the appellant that he had paid valuable consideration to M/s NPR Finance Ltd. for obtaining the seized foreign currency and is, therefore, entitled to receive the same. According to him, even the accused Manjit Raju Sood has taken a stand that the US Dollars were not seized from his possession and has not made any claim with regard to the seized foreign currency and no other person has stake his claim over the seized foreign currency and, therefore, as it was proceeds of crime for which the accused has been convicted he being defacto complainant ought to have been returned 4,000 US $.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the state proposes to take appropriate action against the complainant, i.e. the appellant herein, NPR Finance Ltd. and the accused along with the person from whom the US Dollars came to be seized for violation of Foreign Exchange Management (Current Account Transaction) Rules, 2000 as these Dollars were obtained in breach of the aforesaid Rules and provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management, Act 2000. It is submitted that the Trial Court was justified in confiscating the seized US Dollars for this very reason and, as nobody raised any claim. Therefore, no interference is called for with the decision of the Trial Court confiscating the US Dollar to the State Government.