ORDER 1. This petition is for impugning the order dated 26.9.2003 passed by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Morena in Criminal Revision No. 128/ 2003, whereby the learned Judge has given the seized amount of Rs. 14,50,000/- in supurdagi to the respondent. 2. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that on 19.6.2003 this amount was seized by the police, Morena from one Narendra Singh, who is an employee of the respondent, under section 41 (2) read with section 102 of CrPC on the suspicion that it is an amount of theft. The application filed by the respondent under sections 451 and 457 of CrPC, was rejected vide order dated 24.6.2003 by JMFC, Morena. This order has been set aside vide impugned order dated 26.9.2003. It is observed by the learned Judge that the amount prima facie belongs to the respondent, which was withdrawn by him from his bank account. Despite the objection raised on behalf of the petitioner under section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity the Act), observing that the source has been explained sufficiently by the respondent, the impugned order has been passed. Feeling aggrieved this petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner/Director Income Tax. 3. It is submitted by Shri Seth that when the information was received by the petitioner, he issued warrant of authorization in favour of Deputy Commissioner Income Tax, under section 132A of the Act as the amount is to be disbursed by the Income Tax authorities. As provided by section 293 of the Act, the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred. In support, he has drawn attention at the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Union of India v. Incharge Police Station, Janakganj and others [ 1990 JLJ 734 ]. With regard to an order dated 7.5.2007 (Annexure A) passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Gwalior, Shri Seth has drawn attention at Second paragraph of its internal page 5 in which it is observed that the order passed by the Additional Sessions Court, Morena has become final, as no appeal against the order has been filed. With regard to an order dated 7.5.2007 (Annexure A) passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Gwalior, Shri Seth has drawn attention at Second paragraph of its internal page 5 in which it is observed that the order passed by the Additional Sessions Court, Morena has become final, as no appeal against the order has been filed. This observation shows that pendency of this petition was concealed by the respondent before issuance of the authorization order, during an enquiry it was found that out of the amount alleged 'to be withdrawn from the bank, part of the amount was related to a cheque issued in the name of some other person and the denomination was not tallying with the amount withdrawn from the bank. 4. Countering the contention, Shri Upadhyay for the respondent has submitted that unless it is established that the amount seized is not disclosed amount and has not been properly explained, neither section 132A nor section 293 of the Act applies. After observing that the proper explanation has been given by the respondent with regard to the ownership and source of the amount, the impugned order has been passed, which deserves to be sustained. In support, he has drawn attention at an unreported judgment of another Single Bench of this Court in Biaora Constructions (P) Ltd. v. Director of Income Tax (Investigation) and others dated 12.9.2005. In the light of this judgment, the amount is not required to be returned to the department, as the appellate authority is satisfied that proper explanation has been given and the amount has been entered in the account books. 5. Shri Mahore, for the State, has opposed the impugned order and submitted that the order of the trial Court was justified rejecting the application of the respondent. 6. Upon perusal of the aforementioned judgment of Division Bench cited on behalf of the petitioner, it appears that this case is covered by that case. In that case also the amount was seized by the police. Thereafter authorization under section 132A of the Act was issued and when ignoring the same, the learned Magistrate did not handover the amount to the petitioner, that order was set aside. In that case also the amount was seized by the police. Thereafter authorization under section 132A of the Act was issued and when ignoring the same, the learned Magistrate did not handover the amount to the petitioner, that order was set aside. The part of the observation of the Court in para 9 being relevant is reproduced herein below: "According to us, the police officer who had seized the money from respondent No.3, on being served with the order of the Income Tax Authority and warrant of authorisation, and for that matter learned Magistrate also suffered statutory handicap to deal with the money in any other manner than as contemplated under the special law enacted as aforesaid. Be it noted in this connection that the police had not registered any crime against respondent No.3 and the Income Tax Department on being apprised of the seizure had laid claim to that money and to custody thereof in accordance with provisions aforequoted. Neither SHO Janakganj Police Station, nor learned Magistrate, had any jurisdiction to enquire into the validity of the warrant of authorisation for delivery, of that money, to the Income Tax Officer concerned namely, Shri Khanduja, nor of the competence of the Officer issuing that Warrant of Authorisation." This case is covered by the observation of the Division Bench of this Court in the aforementioned order, which ought to be followed. 7. With regard to the observation of Single Bench of this Court in the case of Biaora Constructions (P) Ltd. (supra), it has been observed that if the amount has been duly accounted for in the assessee's account books, no case for requisition under section 132A of the Act is made out. In the present case, as argued by Shri Seth, during enquiry conducted by an officer of the department it has been observed that the part of the amount withdrawn from the bank is related to a cheque issued to some other person and also the denomination of the currency notes is not tallied. At the time of passing of the impugned order this fact was not on the record that this transaction has been accounted for in the account books of the respondent. At the time of passing of the impugned order this fact was not on the record that this transaction has been accounted for in the account books of the respondent. However, after passing of the impugned order in the year 2007 in the order dated 7.5.2007 the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Gwalior has observed in the last paragraph that the amount has been included in the account books of the respondent. But as contended, upon perusal of this order as a whole, particularly the part of the paragraph 5 at its internal page No.5, it appears that pendency of this petition was concealed before the learned officer who has observed that no appeal against this order of Additional Sessions Judge is made by the Public Prosecutor/State and thus the order has become final. While admittedly, at that time this petition was pending before this Court. In the light of the observation of the Division Bench in the aforementioned order, this order of the officer is not required to be given much weight at this stage. 8. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The impugned order being erroneous and also an abuse of the process of the Court, is set aside. The amount shall be deposited by the respondent No.2 M.S. Tomar Builders and Contractor Pvt. Ltd. in the trial Court with the same denomination of currency notes, which shall be handed over to him for its disbursement in the light of the observation of the Division Bench in the aforementioned judgment.