Shri Krishan Kanwar Kadel @ Krishna Kanwar Kadel vs. The State Of Assam And Anr

Held

The Court held that the seized cash amount of Rs. 22,70,000 should be returned to the petitioner. The reasoning was based on the fact that the Investigating Officer had not followed the procedure laid down in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, which mandates proper panchnama and keeping seized articles in bank lockers if not handed over. Instead, the entire amount was deposited in the Treasury, losing its individual identity and merging with other funds. Consequently, the prosecution could not produce the very same currency notes at the trial. The Court found no impediment in granting zimma of money equivalent to the seized amount to the petitioner. The impugned orders of the lower courts dismissing the zimma petitions were set aside. The petitioner was directed to file an appropriate application before the learned Trial Court for the return of the equivalent amount upon execution of an appropriate bond or bank guarantee.

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Krishan Kanwar Kadel, sought the return of Rs. 22,70,000 seized by the STF Police. The seizure occurred after a suspect, Himangshu Paul, was intercepted in a Hyundai i20 car. During the search, cash and the vehicle were seized. The petitioner was later identified as a suspect and his rented house was searched, leading to the recovery of gold, a melting machine, and other instruments. The petitioner, a businessman trading in gold under the name "Assam Bullion," possesses the necessary GST registration and trade licenses. Previous applications for the return of the seized cash were rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the custody of the seized cash amount of Rs. 22,70,000, considering the investigation is complete and a charge sheet has been filed? The petitioner argued that the seized cash is not required for the purpose of the trial, especially since the gold articles have already been directed to be returned to him. He contended that he is a legitimate businessman with proper registrations. The revenue (State) argued that the seized articles might be required to prove the veracity of the case, as indicated by the earlier rejections of zimma petitions. However, the Additional Public Prosecutor later informed the Court that the seized money was deposited in the Treasury without an inventory or photographs, and thus, the specific currency notes could not be identified or produced at trial.