Magistrate's power to return police-seized property upheld where income-tax requisition under section 132A was not in issue.

Where police-seized money was produced before court, the Magistrate could order its return on an application under section 451 CrPC read with the income-tax provisions. The Madras High Court held that section 132A did not require interpretation of the word "authority" as including the court in this setting, because the case did not concern a requisition by the Income-tax Department for seizure from court custody. The Magistrate was competent to direct delivery of the property to the person lawfully entitled to custody, and the order returning the amount to the Department was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Magistrate was justified in ordering the return of the seized amount to the Income-tax Department on an application under section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with sections 132 and 132A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The seized money had been taken by the police and deposited in court, and the Income-tax Department sought its return on the footing that it represented undisclosed income. The Court held that the case did not involve a requisition by the Department for seizure from court custody, and therefore no interpretation of the word "authority" in section 132A was necessary. Since the Magistrate acted on an application under section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with the income-tax provisions, he was competent to order return of the property to the person entitled to custody.

Conclusion: The order returning the amount to the Income-tax Department was upheld and the challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where property seized by the police is produced before the court, the Magistrate may, on an appropriate application, order its return to the person lawfully entitled to custody, and section 132A does not require construction of "authority" as including the court in such a situation.

---