Section 132A requisition for seized cash prevails over criminal court custody when validly invoked.

Where the competent income-tax authority validly invokes Section 132A, seized cash that may represent undisclosed income must be made available to the Income Tax Department for further proceedings, and the criminal court's interim custody powers under Sections 451 and 457 CrPC cannot override that statutory requisition mechanism. The text states that, once the requisite belief under Section 132A(1)(c) is formed, the Department may obtain custody and proceed under the Income-tax Act, including deposit of the amount in the P.D. Account, without being constrained by the criminal court's custody arrangement.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Income Tax Department was entitled to obtain custody of the seized cash and be permitted to take consequential action under the Income-tax Act by depositing the amount in the P.D. Account instead of the cash being retained or dealt with under the criminal court's orders.

Analysis: The dispute arose from seizure of cash during investigation and the competing claims for its interim custody. The Court applied the settled distinction between the limited powers exercised under Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the distinct statutory mechanism under Section 132A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Relying on earlier decisions, the Court noted that once the competent income-tax authority forms the requisite belief under Section 132A(1)(c), the seized assets are to be made available to the requisitioning officer so that further proceedings under the Income-tax Act can proceed. The Court also followed the principle that criminal court custody orders should not obstruct income-tax proceedings when the statutory requisition power is validly invoked.

Conclusion: The Department's request was allowed. The seized cash was directed to be handed over to the Income Tax Department, and the Department was permitted to undertake all lawful actions, including depositing the amount in the P.D. Account in accordance with the Income-tax Act.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the statutory requisition process under the Income-tax Act was given precedence over the criminal court's interim custody arrangement.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the competent income-tax authority validly invokes Section 132A, seized assets that may represent undisclosed income must be made available to the Income Tax Department for further proceedings, and the criminal court's interim custody powers cannot override that statutory mechanism.

---