Sh. F. Lalrinsanga and Anr. Vs The State of Mizoram

Heard Ms. Langaihsaki, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State of Mizoram.

¶13

2. This application has been preferred seeking custody/release of the seized currency amounting to Rs. 24,50,000/-, which was seized from the petitioners in

¶14

connection with S.R No. 417/2023 arising out of Excise Case No. N-231/23,

¶15

Page No.# 2/3

¶16

under Section 21(c) of the ND&PS Act, 1985.

¶17

3. The prosecution story in brief is that the Excise personnel seized 9.782 kgs of Methamphetamine from the accused Manik Debnath and Ramchandra Das. In the light of the statement rendered by the abovementioned accused, Khawpuimawia and the instant petitioner No. 1 Zonunsanga was arrested and seized Rs.24,50,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakh Fifty Thousand) only from the petitioner at Edenthar on 22.08.2023 at 9:15 a.m.

¶18

4. The case of the petitioners is that seized currency notes were not the sale proceed of the contraband that was seized from the other accused persons. It is stated that the contraband was recovered from another accused person at a different location. The petitioner No. 1 is running a business of re-selling food grains such as rice, dal, etc., which he procured from Aizawl and supplies the same to various stores, such as one belonging to the petitioner No. 1 as well as other shop owners at Champhai/Zokhawthar area. The petitioner No. 2 is the registered owner of S.T Wholesale and Retail registered under UDYAM-Ms. Zairemsangpuii-02-002117. The seized currency was meant for payment for such food grains and there is no link or material to show that the said seized currency is the sale proceeds of the contraband drugs.

¶19

5. It is further submitted that on behalf of the petitioner, that the petitioner is

¶20

Page No.# 3/3

¶21

willing to offer bank guarantee for an amount corresponding to the value of the

¶22

currency notes.

¶23

6. Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that prosecution has no objection to the same to the release of the currency notes if the petitioner is willing to execute bank guarantee.

¶24

7. Upon perusal of the records, it transpires that all the official witnesses including the Seizing Officer have been examined at the trial and prosecution has not sought to exhibit the seized currency notes physically and seizure list has been exhibited instead. Hence, the currency notes are not required for in purpose of the trial.

¶25

8. Having regard to the above, the instant petition is disposed of with the direction to the Learned Special Court, ND&PS Act to release the currency notes in question to the petitioner, subject to execution of suitable bank guarantee on such terms and conditions including additional ones as may be deemed fit by the said Court.

¶26

9. Petition stands allowed.

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

Comparing Assistant

Sh. F. Lalrinsanga and Anr. v. The State of Mizoram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sh. F. Lalrinsanga and Anr. v. The State of Mizoram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sh Kymul Hussain Barbhuiya Vs The State of Mizoram

K.Lalthianghlimi Vs Smt Lalrinpuii

K.Lalthianghlimi Vs Smt Lalrinpuii

Haren Das Vs the State of Assam

Smt. Lalthlamuani and 2 Ors. Vs Smt. Lalrinkimi

Sh. Lalchawimawia Vs State of Mizoram and 3 Ors.