Court No. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2893 of 2018 Revisionist :- Ajay Agrawal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Daya Shankar Mishra,Chandrakesh Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Daya Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
2. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 23.05.2018, by which the Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Varanasi has rejected the application filed by the applicant for release of his money. In this regard, 525 numbers currency notes of the then prevalent Rs.1,000/- denomination (hereinafter referred to as the demonetized currency) had been seized from the applicant on 13.05.2016. It is this money that the applicant had sought to be released in his favour. The learned court below has rejected such application on the reasoning that the currency note is not liable to decay and that it has been deposited in the treasury where the interest of the applicant is fully secured.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the money being valuable currency, the applicant could not be deprived of its possession, use and enjoyment without any valid ground or reason. Merely because the money had been deposited with the treasury, it does not imply that the applicant had lost his right over the same or that he would become entitled to its release only after conclusion of the proceedings. It is also on record that the money had been transferred to the State Bank of India.
4. Reliance has also been placed on a decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the Criminal Appeal No. 1402 of 2014 (Smt. Ranju Rai Vs. Bharat Sangh through Asuchna Adhikari N.C.B. Varanasi) decided on 05.09.2017.
5. At present, no proceedings for confiscation of money appear to have been initiated. Thus the valuable property/money lying seized to the detriment of the present applicant.
6. The reasoning given in the impugned order cannot be sustained. Neither deposit of the seized currency in the treasury or the Bank nor; dispute with regard to simultaneous recovery of 'ganja' from the applicant nor; alleged discrepancy in the signature with respect to recovery of parcel/packet containing 'ganja' is relevant.
7. Thus, no useful purpose would be served in keeping this application pending or the money continuing to be seized on the reasons given in the impugned order.
8. Also, since there is no dispute as to the fact that the money seized was valid tender on that date, the applicant would remain entitled to claim release of that money, in currency in circulation on the date of the order for its release in accordance with notification no. G.S.R.460 (E) dated 12.05.2017.
9. In view of the above, the present application is thus disposed of;
(i) the order dated 23.05.2018 is set aside.
(ii) the matter is remitted to the learned court below to pass a fresh order with respect to release of seized currency strictly in accordance with the law.
10. If the applicant is found entitled to release of the money, appropriate order may be passed in terms of notification no.
G.S.R.460 (E) dated 12.05.2017.
11. The aforesaid exercise may be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order Order Date :- 25.9.2018 Lbm/-