Judgment :- 1. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the above Crl.O.P. and Crl.R.C. are set out below: The respondent in the course of conducting vehicle check up on 01.04.2008 checked one private bus “Sri Lakshmi Saraswathi Bus Service” bearing Register No.TN-23-AD-5699 and found the petitioners sitting on the back side of the driver seat in possession of ten gunny bags with coins; when enquired, they are alleged to have stated that the coins were bought from Andhra Bank at Srikalahasti Branch on 31.03.2008; the said confession statement was recorded and gunny bags containing the coins were seized the coins found in the possession of the petitioners were of following denomination and value: Rupees Amount in Rupees 5 57,270 21 32,000 16,000 50 paise 9,725 25 paise 1, 400 Total 1,16,395 2. Since the petitioners were found in possession of small coins and they were not in a position to produce the necessary documents to show as to how they are in possession of the same, a case in Cr.No.229 of 2008 was registered against them under Section 4 of the Small Coins (Offences) Act, 1971 and the coins were seized and the accused were remanded to judicial custody. The above Crl.O.P. Has been filed seeking to quash the First Information Report in Cr.No.229 of 2008. 3. Pending investigation in the case, the petitioners filed a petition under Section 452 Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Arakkonam seeking interim custody of the coins seized from them. The said petition was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate on the only ground that Crl.O.P.No.17799 of 2008 is pending before this Court and interim stay has been granted. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed the above Criminal Revision Case. 4. Mr. V. Madhavan, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent has committed a grave illegality in seizing coins found in the possession of the petitioners when they had bought the coins from Andhra Bank at Sri Kalahasthi Branch and when as per the definition of Small Coin as found in Section 2(b) coins of the denomination of one rupee and above will not fall under the definition. Coins of the value of less than one rupee alone fall within the definition small coin. Coins of the value of less than one rupee alone fall within the definition small coin. As such the very seizure of the coins of the following denomination of five rupees, two rupees and on rupee is illegal. .5. The learned counsel also drew the attention of this Court to the averments contained in paragraph 6 of the counter statement which reads as follows: .“6. It is further submitted that on 06.08.2008 I enquired the Branch Manager of Andhara Bank, Srikalahasti Branch, Chittoor District, Andhara Pradesh and given a letter to me stating that they received 4.92 lakhs of coins and currency around 38 lakhs on 23. 2008 from Srikalahasti Devasthanam and accused persons given a requisition letter on 33. 2008 requesting coins for Rs. 2,00,000/-. But they only given Rs.1,16,395/- coins. This is purely exchange of currency with coins except letter of party, we have no other details of transaction. As per records available the letter is given on 31.03.2008 but exact time of delivery is not ascertainable. They also informed that they will exchanging coins for currency customers at the time of hundi Collection whoever approaches them for coins.” .6. The learned counsel submitted that even the investigation has revealed the fact that the petitioners have bought coins seized from them by the respondent only from the Andhra Bank at Srikalahasti Branch and as such, no offence has been committed by them. 7. On the aforesaid submission, Mr. Hasan Mohammed jinnah, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) was heard. Learned Government Advocate also fairly submitted that since the investigation also reveals that the petitioners have in the usual course of business bought the coins seized by them from the Andhra Bank at Srikalahasti Branch, Chittoor as revealed from the statement given by the Branch Manager of the said Bank, no offence has been committed by the petitioners. He further submitted that since this Court has granted stay pending the above Crl.O.P., investigation was not conducted. 8. I have considered the said submissions made by either side. .9. He further submitted that since this Court has granted stay pending the above Crl.O.P., investigation was not conducted. 8. I have considered the said submissions made by either side. .9. Before going into the merits of the contentions put forth on the either side, it will be useful to refer to the definition of Small Coin as found in Section 2(b) of the Small Coins (Offences) Act, 1971 which reads as follows: .“”Small Coin” means any coin of the value of less than one rupee, which is legal tender under the Indian Coinage Act, 1906.” .10. the aforesaid definition of small Coin makes it clear that only the coins of the value of less than one rupee will fall under the definition of “Small Coin” But unfortunately without looking into the definition of small coin, the respondent has seized five rupees, two rupees and one rupee coins of the value of Rs.57,270/-, Rs. 32,000/- and 16,000/-respectively from the petitioners. When the aforesaid coins do not fall under the definition of small coin, the very seizure is illegal. As stated above, immediately on being enquired by the respondent, the petitioners have informed that they have purchased the coins from the Andhra Bank at Srikalahasti Branch for valuable consideration and when such a statement has been made by the petitioners, the respondent should have cross checked with the said Bank. But unfortunately without even cross checking with the said Bank, the respondent has registered the case. As stated in the counter statement filed by the respondent, the Branch Manager of Andhra Bank at Srikalahasthi, Chittoor district, Andhra Pradesh has given a letter to the respondent stating that the petitioners gave a requisition letter on 31.03.2008 requesting coins for Rs.2,00,000/-, but they were given coins only to the value of Rs.1,16,395/-. Thus it is clear that the aforesaid statement of the Branch Manager of the said Bank corroborates the version of petitioners, namely that they bought the coins seized by the respondent from the said Bank. In the light of the aforesaid letter obtained from the Branch Manager of the said Bank it could not be said that the petitioners could have committed any offence. 11. In the light of the aforesaid letter obtained from the Branch Manager of the said Bank it could not be said that the petitioners could have committed any offence. 11. In this context it will be useful to refer to the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. In the said decision while listing out the category of cases which could be quashed by exercising the extraordinary power under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down that “Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence Collected in Support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused”’ by exercising the power under Section 226 or section 482 Cr.P.C. the First Information Report can be quashed. If in the light of the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court, the allegations contained in the First Information Report and the letter given by the Branch Manager of Andhra Bank at Srikalahasthi, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh are considered it could be seen that the commission of any offence is not made out against the petitioners. Therefore any further continuance of the investigation in Cr.No.229 of 2008 will be an abuse of process of law. Therefore this Court is constrained to quash the First Information Report in Cr.No.229 of 2008 on the file of the respondent. 12. Now that the First Information Report itself has been quashed, there is no justification for retaining the coins in the custody of the Court and therefore, it goes without saying that the petitioners are entitled for return of the coins seized from them in connection with Cr.No.229 of 2008. Accordingly both Crl.O.P.17799 of 2008 and Cr.R.C.No.1531 of 2008 are allowed and the learned Judicial Magistrate is hereby directed to return the coins to the petitioners. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.