the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore stating that the source of said amount recovered from petitioner belonged to the farmers. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the petitioner’s application vide order dated 30.08.2019. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore, who also dismissed the revision vide order dated 31.01.2020 and affirmed the order dated 30.08.2019 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate refusing to hand over the seized cash to the petitioner. Hence this misc. petition before this Court. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 102 Cr.P.C. authorizes a Police officer to seize any property, which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen or which may, found under circumstances, create a suspicion of commission of any offence. In the present case, the cash of Rs. 26,52,000/- was certainly seized by the Police from the petitioner but he received the said amount upon selling grains in market. Since, the Police after having recovered cash of Rs. 26,52,000/- under Section 102 Cr.P.C., forwarded the report, as mandatorily required by virtue of sub-section (3) of Section 102 Cr.P.C. to the concerned Magistrate, where the petitioner filed an application for handing him over the amount, inasmuch as the same was not claimed by anyone else and also that satisfactory explanation about the source of currency was disclosed. Thus, the learned courts below have committed error in refusing to hand over the seized currency to the petitioner by the impugned orders.
