The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the seizure of money by the second respondent. According to the petitioner, after seizure of the money, the second respondent instead of reporting the matter before the competent jurisdictional Magistrate has given the custody of the money to the Revenue Divisional Officer. Ext.P1 is the list of the seizure.
2. In view of the decision of this Court in Dharmaraj Bhosale v. Directorate of Enforcement [2014 (4) KLT 62], the seizure has to be reported before the competent Jurisdictional Magistrate and the Magistrate has to decide to whom the custody of the money has to be given in an appropriate proceedings after hearing the petitioner and any other agencies as the case may be. This Court in Dharmaraj Bhosale's case (supra) held that the police cannot handover the seized unaccounted money directly to W.P.(C) No. 26170 of 2014 2 the Enforcement Authorities without producing the same before the Magistrate Court concerned.
In view of the above, the second respondent is directed to report seizure of the money before the competent Jurisdictional Magistrate within seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The competent Jurisdictional Magistrate shall consider the application, if any, filed by any person within two weeks in the light of the directions in the Dharmaraj Bhosale's case (supra). Till a decision is taken by the competent Jurisdictional Magistrate, the money will continue to be in the custody of the Revenue Divisional Officer.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE ln