The petitioner sought release of Rs. 6,33,500 seized during a narcotics investigation. The court dismissed the application, holding that the explanation for the funds was not substantiated by documents, especially for the unaccounted balance, and upheld the lower court's findings. (disposition: dismissed)
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 354 of 2017
Most. Geeta @ Mo Geeta W/o Late Kishan Lal Sharma and Daughter of Mathura Prasad Sharma, Resident of villageGudra Ghat, P.O. & P.S.- Rajmahal, District- Sahibganj.
... … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... … Opposite Party
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Raja Ravi Shekhar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Roy, A.P.P.
04/11.09.2017 Heard Mr. Raja Ravi Shekhar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sudhir Kumar Roy, learned A.P.P. for the State.
This application is directed against the order dated 15.12.2016 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Sahibganj in Criminal Misc. Case No. 06 of 2015, by which the application preferred by the petitioner for release of cash amount of Rs. 6,33,500/- which was seized in connection with Rajmahal P.S. Case No. 425 of 2014 has been rejected.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had sold her land to one Pramod Kumar Jain on account of the impending marriage of her grand daughter and an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was given as advance. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far as the rest amount of Rs. 1,33,500/- is concerned the same was arranged by the petitioner from other sources. It has been submitted that the entire amount was for the marriage expenses and construction of the house and therefore since the petitioner had genuinely explained the amount which was seized the application for release ought to have been allowed and the amount released in favour of the petitioner.
Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner.
It appears that although the petitioner has given an explanation with respect to receiving an amount of
-2-
Rs. 5,00,000/- but so far as the rest amount of Rs. 1,33,500/is concerned no substantial document has been put forward in support of the said contention. The same thus creates doubt on the contention of the petitioner that an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was taken for the marriage expenses from one Pramod Kumar Jain. The allegation made in the First Information Report is of recovery of 12 kg., 750 grams of ganja as well as the amount of Rs. 6,33,500/- which the petitioner has prayed for being released in her favour. The petitioner having unable to account for the amount of Rs. 6,33,500/seized from her house, the learned court below had rightly rejected the release application filed by her. I am inclined to agree with the findings given by the learned court below and thus having found no merit in this application, the same is, hereby, dismissed.
(R. Mukhopadhyay, J.)
Alok/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's explanation regarding the source of the seized cash amount of Rs. 6,33,500 is sufficiently supported by evidence to warrant its release.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the rejection of the application for release of seized cash by the learned Principal Sessions Judge.
Geeta @ Mo Geeta
The State of Jharkhand
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
