Petitioner challenged dismissal of application for release of seized demonetised cash, arguing loss of value. Court dismissed plea, holding state would pay equivalent value if petitioner succeeds at trial.
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 JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Revision No.156 of 2017
===========================================================
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Respondent/s : Mr.
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 21-02-2017
The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 17.01.2017 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate II, Nawada in Warsaliganj P.S. Case No. 178 of 2016, whereby he has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner for release of cash to the tune of Rs. 74,000/-which was seized by Warsaliganj police from the possession of the petitioner on 26.07.2016 in connection with the said case.
It is the case of the petitioner that currency notes of Rs. 500 denomination have been seized by the police which validly belonged to the petitioner. According to him, seizure of the said amount is wholly illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that because of demonetisation, if the said money is not deposited in the Bank by 31st March, 2017, it will loose its value completely and even if petitioner succeeds at the trial, the said amount
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.156 of 2017 dt.21-02-2017
2/2
cannot be returned back. On that ground, the petitioner has sought for release of the amount, agitating his plea before this Court in revisional jurisdiction against the impugned order dated 17.01.2017.
In my opinion, the apprehension of the petitioner is unfounded. If the petitioner finally succeeds at the criminal trial, and if the amount seized is to be returned back to him, it will be an obligation on the State to pay petitioner amount which he is entitled to
and not the currency notes which lost its value upon demonetisation.
With this observation, this application stands
disposed of.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J)
Ranjan/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A. Uploading Date01.03.2017 Transmission 01.03.2017 Date
Bipul Singh
The State of Bihar
Chakradhari Sharan Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
