Soleman Ansary @ Ansari vs. The State Of Assam

Facts

The petitioner, Soleman Ansary, sought the return of Rs. 19,99,500/- seized by the Gauripur Police on December 15, 2022. The seizure occurred during a naka checking based on information about a vehicle carrying cash for illegal cattle smuggling. Four individuals were arrested, and the cash was confiscated. The police investigation concluded with a final report on January 30, 2024, recommending the petitioner's discharge due to insufficient evidence. The seized amount was deposited in the Dhubri Treasury. The petitioner's subsequent application for the custody of the seized cash was rejected by the Additional CJM, Dhubri, on August 29, 2024. The rejection was based on the petitioner not filing income tax returns from the financial year 2022-2023 and the low balance in his bank accounts, suggesting concealment of transactions.

Held

The Court held that articles seized in connection with a criminal case should be returned to the owner or the person from whom they were seized at the earliest opportunity, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat. The Court found that the Investigating Officer's report indicated the seized amount belonged to the petitioner and that no other person had claimed ownership. While acknowledging the Additional CJM's concerns regarding the petitioner's income tax filings and the large cash amount, the Court prioritized the principle of returning seized currency notes. Therefore, the Court directed the concerned police officer to hand over the currency notes to the petitioner upon collecting an indemnity bond. This bond would ensure that the petitioner indemnifies the State if any claims arise regarding the money later. The Court disposed of the petition with these observations.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Additional CJM, Dhubri, erred in rejecting the petitioner's application for the custody of the seized cash amount of Rs. 19,99,500/-, considering the final report recommending discharge and the principles of returning seized articles in criminal cases? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the seized amount should be returned as the police investigation concluded with a final report recommending his discharge due to lack of evidence. He relied on the Investigating Officer's report dated May 18, 2026, which stated the money was acquired from the sale of land (Rs. 4,90,000/- from his father) and his grocery business (which has a GST number), and that no other person claimed ownership. He also cited the Supreme Court's decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat regarding the prompt return of seized articles. Revenue/State's contention: The State, through the Additional Public Prosecutor, did not present any specific arguments against the petitioner's claim for the return of the seized amount. The Court's rejection of the petitioner's application was based on the grounds of non-filing of income tax returns and the discrepancy between the seized cash and the declared bank balances, as per the Income Tax Act.