In a significant ruling, the Orissa High Court has laid down comprehensive guidelines for the interim release of seized currency notes to accused individuals during the pendency of criminal trials. The Court emphasized that retaining currency in judicial custody without compelling reasons hampers economic circulation and is contrary to the principles of justice.
Background of the Case
The case involved a petitioner accused of operating unauthorized investment schemes through M/s Infinity Realcon Ltd., allegedly defrauding investors without requisite approvals from the Reserve Bank of India. During a search by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), ₹15 lakh in cash was seized from the petitioner's office in Kolkata. After being granted bail by the Supreme Court, the petitioner sought interim custody of the seized cash under Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). However, the Special Judge (CBI), Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar, rejected the application, leading to the present revision petition before the High Court.
Legal Framework and Precedents
The petitioner, represented by Advocate Debashis Sinha, relied on Sections 451 and 457 of the CrPC, which pertain to the custody and disposal of property during criminal proceedings. He cited the Supreme Court's decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002), which held that seized property should not be retained unnecessarily and must be returned to its rightful owner promptly. Additionally, the Delhi High Court's ruling in Manjit Singh v. State (2014) was referenced, where it was held that seized currency notes could be released to the person lawfully entitled to them after proper documentation.
High Court's Observations and Rationale
Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra, presiding over the matter, observed that currency notes, being movable property, should not remain stagnant in judicial custody when they can be preserved through alternative means without prejudicing the prosecution's case. The Court emphasized that allowing the release of seized currency under appropriate conditions would not only comply with legal precedents but also serve the larger public interest by ensuring that money continues to contribute to the economy rather than remaining unutilized in custody.
Guidelines Issued by the Court
The Court laid down the following guidelines for the interim release of seized currency notes:
-
Assessment of Necessity: Courts and investigating authorities must ensure that seized property is not retained indefinitely without valid legal justification. Prompt steps should be taken for its release or disposal unless required for ongoing investigation or trial.
-
Adherence to Legal Provisions: The disposal process should adhere to Sections 451, 452, and 457 of the CrPC and be guided by established judicial precedents.
-
Documentation and Verification: A detailed panchnama (seizure memo) should be prepared, noting the denomination and serial numbers of the seized currency notes. Photographs of the currency should be taken, and the process should be witnessed by independent individuals to ensure transparency.
-
Execution of Bonds: The person to whom the currency is released must execute a bond, undertaking to produce the currency before the Court as and when required.
-
Consideration of Economic Impact: The Court recognized that allowing currency to remain idle in custody serves no purpose and that its circulation would aid the economy.
Implications of the Judgment
This ruling has significant implications for the handling of seized currency in criminal cases. It underscores the importance of balancing the interests of justice with economic considerations. By facilitating the interim release of currency, the Court aims to prevent unnecessary stagnation of funds and ensure that the rights of individuals are not unduly infringed upon during prolonged legal proceedings.
Conclusion
The Orissa High Court's decision provides a pragmatic approach to the management of seized currency in criminal cases. By issuing clear guidelines, the Court ensures that the legal process does not inadvertently hinder economic activity or violate individual rights. This judgment serves as a valuable precedent for other jurisdictions dealing with similar issues.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.