TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether seized gold bars, already exhibited in a criminal case and on which redemption fine had been paid, could be returned immediately or otherwise dealt with before conclusion of the trial, in the face of the rule governing return of admitted exhibits.
Analysis: The seized gold bars had been marked as material exhibits. Rule 170 of the Calcutta High Court Criminal (Subordinate Courts) Rules, 1985 bars return or destruction of articles admitted in evidence until the appeal is disposed of, or where no appeal is preferred, until six months after the appeal period expires, subject to section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court treated the rule as having the force of law and declined to exercise inherent powers contrary to that embargo. At the same time, the Court noted that redemption fine had already been paid and that the gold bars could not be forfeited to the State at the end of the trial.
Conclusion: Immediate return of the seized gold bars was not ordered. The criminal proceeding was directed to be concluded expeditiously, and upon conclusion the Magistrate was to dispose of the seized gold bars in accordance with law, taking into account the payment of redemption fine and the absence of forfeiture to the State.
Final Conclusion: The application resulted in a limited protective direction for expeditious disposal of the criminal case and future lawful treatment of the seized gold bars, without granting present return of the property.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a court rule places an embargo on return of exhibits admitted in evidence, the court will not invoke inherent powers to override that mandate, while any final disposal must still respect the legal effect of payment of redemption fine.
TaxTMI 
