AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1492
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2/2021 registered an offence against unknown persons. (3.1) After making investigation, the police arrested the accused and recovered the stolen articles (gold and cash) from their possession. (3.2) Subsequently, an application under Section 457 of the CrPC was moved by the applicant before the trial Court for handing over the possession of articles seized by the police in his favour. (3.3) In the meantime, the Income Tax Department and prosecution raised an objection to the application moved by the applicant under Section 457 of the CrPC saying that just to evade the tax liability, the applicant kept such a huge cash amount and gold in his house, which otherwise is a loss to the Government and as such, custody of the seized articles cannot be handed over to the applicant. In addition, by moving a letter before the trial Court, the Assistant Director, Income Tax, had also asked for the custody of the articles recovered from the thieves. (3.4) Ultimately, the trial Court by the impugned order dated 08.04.2022 (Annexure-P/6) has rejected the application preferred by the applicant saying that since the enquiry of Income Tax Department has not been concluded so far and the amount m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ention, learned counsel for the objector has placed reliance upon an order dated 24.11.2023 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in M.Cr.C. No.46235 of 2020 [M/s Mectec Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and another]. On these grounds, it is prayed that the revision is without any substance and deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Now, the only question remains to be adjudicated in this revision is as to whether under the existing circumstances, rejection of application preferred by the applicant that too on an objection raised by the Income Tax Department saying that as per the provision of Section 132A(1) of the Act, 1961, they have issued a warrant of authorization against the seized articles to the applicant, is proper on the part of the trial Court or not. 8. So far as the case of M/s Mectec (supra) is concerned, the same has no application in the present facts and circumstances of the case for the reason that the facts of the said case are altogether different than that of present case. However, in the said case, the coordinate Bench has relied upon a case reported in (1990) JLJ ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of Rajendra Kumar Pandey, a partner of M/s Vindhya Metal Corporation, Imamganj, Mirzapur. In the meantime, Rajendra Kumar Pandey had made an application before the Judicial Magistrate (Railways), Varanasi, praying that the amount which belonged to the petitioners and was being carried by Vinod Kumar, who is serving as a Munim in the Firm, be released in his favour. However, the Income Tax Officer opposing the said prayer had submitted their objection and asked for the custody of the amount from the Station Officer-in-charge. In turn, the Judicial Magistrate (Railways), rejecting the objection raised by the department had decided the matter by a detailed order and directed for return of the amount in favour of Rajendra Kumar Pandey. Subsequently, the said order was assailed in Criminal Revision No.177 of 1982 filed under Section 378 of the CrPC, which got allowed by the Court permitting the Income Tax Department to take possession of the sum of Rs. 4,63,000/- Before disposal of the said criminal revision, one petition was also filed before the High Court requesting therein that not only the orders of attachment of money; authorization of search warrant and issuance of notice to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the asset represents either wholly or partly income or property which has not been or would not be disclosed for the purposes of the Act, according to us, the best suited person to hold the currency notes which have been seized in cases of this nature until the culmination of the enquiry or trial, would be the competent authority under the Act provided it is alleged that the asset represents either wholly or partly income or property which has not been or would not be disclosed for the purposes of the Act. Even though this Court held in Abdul Khader that Section 132A does not empower the competent authority to make a requisition to a court for delivery of assets, it was made clear in the said case that the competent authority under the Act is entitled to seek interim custody of the seized assets. In the said COURT view of the matter, according to us, the view expressed in Union of India that the competent authority under the Act is entitled to seek interim custody of the currency notes in the facts of the said case, is in order. 11. It appears that the learned Single Judge who dealt with R. Ravirajan is persuaded by the judgment of the Apex Court in J.R. Malhotra. A close r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or trial. In the result, the reference is answered upholding the view taken in Union of India subject to the observations made in the preceding paragraph as regards the directions issued therein for completion of assessment proceedings in respect of the assets, appropriation of tax, disbursement of balance etc. Registry shall place these matters for disposal on merits before the regular bench as per roster.' [Emphasis Supplied] 11. From the aforesaid enunciation of law, it is clear that in a criminal case, if any stolen property is seized by the police from the accused, then the Income Tax Department cannot claim possession over the said seized property by issuing notice under Section 132A of the Act, 1961 for the reason that the same is a separate proceeding and can be initiated only after decision of the Court. 12. In the present case, after making a complaint by the applicant in respect of an event of theft committed in his house, the police made investigation and seized the stolen articles from the accused and thereafter, the applicant moved an application for handing over the possession of said seized articles in his favour annexing therewith documents of his ownership o....