IN THE COURT OF THE XXXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE & SPL. JUDGE (NDPS), BENGALURU. CCH.33. PRESENT: SMT. B.S. JAYASHREE, LL.M., XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE (NDPS), BENGALURU. DATED: THIS THE 23 rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 Crl.Misc.No.7708/2022 Petitioner : Balaji C @ Balaji Chakravarthi, (accused No.2) S/o.Chakrabani, 48 years, No.2/08, Saiyath Kedar Street, Ist Floor, Shevapet, Selam, Tamil Nadu 636 002. (By Sri GR., Adv.) V/S. Respondent : State by Kumaraswamy PS (By Public Prosecutor)
ORDER
The Petitioner/accused No.2 has filed the present petition U/s.457 of Cr.P.C., seeking interim custody of cash seized in the case to the tune of Rs.27,50,000/ in PF No.11/2021.
2. The Petitioner herein claims that he is the lawful
owner of the cash seized by the complainant. No contraband is seized from the possession of the petitioner herein. He is no way connected to the crime. The cash seized in the case is required for his day to day business and for the treatment of his mother who is not well. Hence, he has filed the present petition.
3. The prosecution while opposing the application
contends that the cash seized under NDPS Act has to be confiscated to the State. This court has no jurisdiction to release the vehicle in favour of the petitioner. Further, the cash seized is accrued by the sale of contraband. Hence, it is required for identification during the course of trial. If the same is released there is is every possibility of not producing the same during the course of trial. Hence, sought to reject the application.
4. Heard the arguments.
5. The points that arise for my consideration are as here under:
CCH-33 Crl.Misc.No.7708/2022
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the interim custody of the cash sought in the application?
2. Whether the petition filed U/s.457 of Cr.P.C., seeking interim custody of the vehicle can be entertained?
3. What order?
6. My answer to the above points are as here under:
Point No.1 In the Affirmative Point No.2 In the Affirmative Point No.3 As per the final order, for the following:
REASONS
7. Point No.1 & 2: The gist of the complaint is that
on 15.1.2022 basing on the credible information CW.1 PSI of KS Layout PS., conducted raid in a public place situated adjacent to Dayananda Sagar hospital. The person who was found there at 3.00 pm., he was one Rahul Sharma S/o.Tulasiram native of Rajasthan. During the personal search of said Rahul Sharma 334 LSD strips were found and Rs.530/- cash. The value of the said contraband is Rs.7 lakhs. The accused No.1 was arrested. During voluntary statement he has revealed that accused No.2 is the supplier of contraband. Basing on the statement of accused No.1, accused No.2 is apprehended. A cash of Rs.27,50,000/- is seized from his house on 19.1.2021. During interrogation he has revealed that since two years he is purchasing contraband from Netherlands from one Galacticacid through Wickr Me app and pay him through Bitcoin. He used to sell the same all over the State. But no contraband is seized at the instance of accused No.2/present petitioner.
8. The present petitioner is enlarged on bail by the
Hon'ble High Court in Crl.Petition No.4260/2022. Now, in the present petition he is seeking interim custody of cash of Rs.27,50,000/ as he is a jeweler and he has kept the said amount in his house for jewelry business. He has produced his GST registration certificate to show that he is proprietor of jewelery shop. Further he has produced his Income tax returns for the year 202021. As per the said document he is a jeweler. He is making jewelries and he has shown gold and silver articles in his income tax statement worth Rs.20 lakhs.
9. The investigation in the case is completed and charge
sheet is filed. The cash seized from the custody of present CCH-33 Crl.Misc.No.7708/2022 petitioner is not required for the purpose of trial. At this stage there is no material placed on record by the investigation agency to show that the cash which is shown in the PF is accrued out of sale of drug.
10. I have carefully gone through the rival contentions. In
the landmark of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sunderbha1 Ambalal Desai vs State Of Gujarat AIR 2003 page 683 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that whenever the articles seized during the course of investigation it should not be kept in the police station for a long period. The court is authorised to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for the return of the said vehicle. In the instant case the cash which is seized by the investigating agency is required for the day to day business of the accused No.2 who is a jeweler. Hence, by imposing conditions the petition is entertained it would not in any way hamper the trail of the case. In view of the order of Hon'ble Apex Court, I proceed to hold that the petitioner is entitle for interim custody of vehicle. Accordingly, I answer the points for consideration in the Affirmative.
11. Point No.3: In view of the above, I pass the following:
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec.457 of Cr.P.C., seeking interim custody of cash is allowed. The petitioner is entitled for the release of the cash of Rs.27,50,000/ on executing indemnity bond of Rs.27,50,000/ with one surety for the like sum subject to following conditions:
1. IO., shall take the photograph at the time of release of cash and shall produce the same to the court.
[Dictated to the stenographer, directly on the computer, typed and computerised by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 23rd day of September 2022] (B. S. JAYASHREE) XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE, (NDPS) : BENGALURU.