Retention of seized digital devices without reliance in the complaint was disallowed, but cash release was left to confiscation proceedings.

Seized digital devices could not be retained where they were not included among the relied upon documents in the prosecution complaint; release was directed within thirty days, while a clone copy could be retained for investigation. The claim for release of seized cash was not granted because confiscation had already been sought before the Special Court, and the appellant was left to pursue appropriate relief there. The appeal succeeded only in relation to the digital devices, and the cash issue remained to be agitated before the Special Court.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the seized digital devices could continue to be retained when they were not relied upon in the prosecution complaint; (ii) whether the appellant was entitled to release of the seized cash of Rs. 50 lakh.

Issue (i): Whether the seized digital devices could continue to be retained when they were not relied upon in the prosecution complaint.

Analysis: The digital devices were not made part of the relied upon documents in the prosecution complaint. In the absence of such reliance, there was no justification for continued retention. The respondent was, however, permitted to keep a clone copy for investigation.

Conclusion: The seized digital devices were directed to be released within thirty days, while the respondent could retain clone copies for investigation.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant was entitled to release of the seized cash of Rs. 50 lakh.

Analysis: The cash had been sought to be confiscated before the Special Court. In view of the pending confiscation claim, release was not ordered in these proceedings, and the appellant was left to seek appropriate relief before the Special Court.

Conclusion: No release of the seized cash was ordered in these proceedings and liberty was given to pursue the remedy before the Special Court.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of release of the digital devices, while the claim regarding the seized cash was left to be pursued before the Special Court, and the matters were disposed of accordingly.

---