IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA CRL.P. NO.3116/2017 BETWEEN SRI. JANARDHAN S., DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX - (INVESTIGATION), UNIT-1(1) C. R. BUILDINGS ANNEXE, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. ARAVIND K. V., ADV.) AND 1. STATE BY VIDHANA SOUDHA, POLICE STATION.
2. H. M. SIDDHARTHA, S/O SRI. H. M. BHARATHESH, R/AT # 1044, 10TH MAIN, JUDICIAL LAYOUT, JAKKUR YELAHANKA, BENGALURU ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R-1 SRI. SIDDARTH B. MUCHANDI, ADV. FOR R-2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 9.12.2016 PASSED BY THE I A.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN CRIME NO.66/2016 BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE PETITON BY DIRECTING TO RELEASE OF SEIZED CASH OF RS.1,97,49,000/- IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner – Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Bengaluru, has filed this petition calling in question the order passed by the VIII ACMM, Bengaluru, dated 9.12.2016, in rejecting the application filed u/ss.451 & 457 of Cr.P.C. for release of Rs.1,97,50,000/- in favour of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner has claimed in the said application that the amount seized by the police constitutes gross total income earned by the accused during the period from 1.4.2016 to 21.10.2016 and the accused has not satisfactorily explained as to how he has got in possession of the said money.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 - accused has contended that he has no objection for release of the money to the extent of Rs.65,00,000/- in favour of the Income Tax Department and prayed for release of the remaining amount in his favour. Hence, both the applications were clubbed and a common order has been passed by the trial court.
4. The petitioner/applicant, Income Tax Department has contended that the accused has not declared the said amount in accordance with law and the accused has given inconsistent statement in respect of the said amount under Section 269 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, in order to complete the assessment order, the Income Tax Department has claimed that amount.
5. The accused/applicant in fact has also claimed that the said amount belongs to him. However, the trial Court has rejected the applications filed by the accused and the petitioner herein. The accused did not challenge the said order.
6. At paragraph 11 of the order dated 9.12.2016, the trial court is of the opinion that, the police have seized the said amount from the accused applicant. From the records, it clearly appears that the accused has not given any proper explanation as to how he came into the possession of such huge amount and more over, he has not at all maintained any books of accounts. It is further observed that the provisions of the Income Tax Act comes into picture only when any money or other valuable articles have not been submitted to assessment.
7. In the instant case, the accused/applicant has not produced any document to show that he is the owner of the said amount and also he has not given any proper explanation for the same. Therefore, the court refused to release money in favour of the accused or in favour of the department.
8. There is no dispute that the said amount was seized from the custody of the accused and the Income Tax Department states that the said amount required for the purpose of completing the assessment year pertaining to accused account. Keeping that money with the court, would not serve any purpose. Therefore, if it is released in favour of the Income Tax Department, which is a Governmental authority, subject to the final decision of the court, it may not cause any inconvenience to anybody. In the event if the trial court comes to the conclusion that the said amount does not belong to the accused or the Income Tax Department, either for taxation purpose or for any other purpose, in such an eventuality Income Tax Department has to redeposit the said amount to the Court if any appropriate order is passed.
9. With the aforesaid observation, if the trial Court is directed to release the said amount in favour of the Income Tax Department, instead of keeping the same in the Cr.CD account, which may not fetch any interest, it would meet the ends of justice. Further, the accused has not raised any serious objection to release the said amount in favour of the Income Tax Department. On the other hand, the accused has not challenged the order passed by the trial Court in rejecting the said application for release of the seized amount. The counsel for accused (respondent herein) has no objection to release the amount to the petitioner.
10. Under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Department being the Government authority is answerable for the said amount in future. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER The petition stands disposed of. The order passed by the learned VIII Addl. CMM, Bengaluru dated 9.12.2016 is hereby set aside to the extent of rejecting the application filed by the petitioner herein before the trial Court. The application filed by the petitioner u/s.451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. Consequently, the trial Court is hereby directed to release the amount of Rs.1,97,50,000/- in favour of the Income Tax Department i.e., the petitioner herein subject to the condition that the release of the said amount is subject to the final decision of the trial Court. The petitioner has to give an indemnity undertaking, that he would abide by the final decision of the trial Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE PL*