High Court Upholds Decision on Seized Money; Petitioner Directed to Pursue Legal Remedies

The High Court upheld the Single Judge's decision, dismissing the writ appeal challenging the retention of seized money by the Income Tax Department. The Court directed the petitioner to pursue legal remedies through a revision petition before the Sessions Court and approach the Income Tax Department for release of the funds. Emphasizing the limitations of its jurisdiction under Article 226, the Court declined to issue any direction for immediate release of the money without proper adjudication by the relevant authority. The appellant was granted liberty to seek appropriate relief through the established legal channels.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge against the order of the Single Judge dated 27th January, 2020.
2. Dispute over the custody of seized money involving Income Tax Department and writ petitioner.
3. Legal remedy sought by the petitioner for release of the seized money.
4. Interpretation of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the High Court.

Issue 1: Challenge against the Single Judge's Order
The petitioner appealed against the Single Judge's decision, arguing that the Department of Income Tax should not retain the money indefinitely and should release it upon proper security being furnished. The petitioner cited precedents from the High Courts of Punjab and Haryana and Allahabad to support their contention.

Issue 2: Dispute over Seized Money
The High Court noted that the money seized by the police was in the custody of the Income Tax Department based on an order from the Magistrate's Court. The Income Tax Department had initiated 'centralization proceedings' against the accused individuals. The court directed the petitioner to approach the Income Tax Department for claiming ownership and release of the money, as the Department was in possession of the funds pending finalization of proceedings.

Issue 3: Legal Remedy for Release of Seized Money
The court emphasized that the petitioner could pursue the remedy of a revision petition filed before the Sessions Court and approach the appropriate authority in the Income Tax Department to claim ownership and seek release of the amount. The High Court clarified that it could not issue any direction for the release of the money under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless a proper adjudication was made by the relevant authority or court.

Issue 4: Interpretation of Powers under Article 226
The High Court concurred with the Single Judge's decision, stating that interference by the court would be warranted only in a proper proceeding where the appellant challenges an order passed by the authority or court concerned. The court held that it was not appropriate to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 to issue any direction for the release of the money without proper adjudication by the relevant authority.

In conclusion, the High Court found no illegality, error, or impropriety in the Single Judge's judgment and dismissed the writ appeal, granting the appellant liberty to approach the appropriate authority or court for seeking suitable reliefs in the matter.

---