High Court emphasizes legal hierarchy, dismisses writ petition on seized amount custody.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition regarding the custody of a seized amount, emphasizing the need to follow the hierarchy of legal remedies. The Court highlighted that the matter was already under consideration in a Criminal Revision Petition before the Sessions Court and advised the petitioner to address grievances through appropriate legal channels. The Court found the petition lacking in grounds for discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and stressed the importance of respecting due process in legal proceedings. Ultimately, the High Court upheld the importance of adhering to established legal procedures and dismissed the petition for lacking merit.

---

---

Issues:
1. Dispute over the custody of seized amount between Income Tax Department and the petitioner.
2. Legality and correctness of the order regarding custody of seized amount.
3. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the writ petition.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Dispute over the custody of seized amount
The petitioner, a dealer of gold ornaments, was involved in a case where a significant amount of money was seized by the 2nd respondent without proper documentation. The Income Tax Department initiated proceedings to obtain custody of the seized amount. The petitioner challenged this action, claiming to have provided necessary documents to explain the source of the money. The dispute arose due to the alleged lack of proper documentation for transporting the money, leading to criminal proceedings against the accused.

Issue 2: Legality and correctness of the order regarding custody of seized amount
The High Court noted that the legality and correctness of the order granting custody of the seized amount to the Income Tax Department were already under consideration in a Criminal Revision Petition pending before the Sessions Court. The Court emphasized the importance of following the hierarchy of remedies available and refrained from entertaining similar prayers in the writ petition, as it could short-circuit the due process. The Court highlighted that the petitioner should address any grievances through the appropriate legal channels, including potential challenges under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Issue 3: Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the writ petition
While acknowledging the petitioner's concerns, the High Court concluded that the writ petition did not present sufficient grounds to warrant the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court determined that since the matter was already pending before the Sessions Court with further legal remedies available, it was not appropriate to bypass the established legal procedures by resorting to proceedings under Article 226. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner lacked merit in seeking relief through the High Court.

In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the writ petition, emphasizing the importance of following the established legal procedures and hierarchy of remedies available to address grievances effectively. The judgment underscored the significance of respecting due process and refraining from circumventing the legal framework in seeking redressal for disputes related to the custody of seized amounts and ongoing legal proceedings.

---