JUDGEMENT 1. Heard. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 15.7.2009 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bettiah, in Cr. Revision No. 91 of 2009, by which he has rejected the revision petition confirming the order dated 14.5.2009, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran, by which a prayer has been for release of seized money in favour of the petitioner has been refused. 2. The prosecution as alleged as alleged in the Fardbeyan by the informant that on secret information that candidate of L.J.P. Prakash Jha is distributing money illegally to influence the voters and it is alleged that the Police raided the rented house of the politician at about 11.45 P.M. and found that 38 persons in the campus and they did not give any satisfactory answer regarding the seized money of Rs. 10,25,350/- from two bags from the room inside the house. It is alleged that said money was kept for the purpose of distributing money amongst the voters and persons present there also disclosed that said money belongs to Prakash Jha. Seizure list was prepared and charge-sheet has been submitted under Sections 188, 171(F), 171(H)/34 I.P.C. and 123 of R.P.Act. 3. However, petition for release of money filed under Section 451 has been refused by the A.C.J.M. Learned A.C.J.M. by its order refusing to release seized money taking into consideration the report of S.H.O., Bettiah Town P.S. who had reported that no requirement of seized money during investigation of the case but even on such report the petition for release has been rejected on the ground that petitioner has not appeared in the case, hence it would not be proper to release seized money. 4. Being aggrieved by the order, a revision filed before the Additional District Judge. Learned Additional District Judge while rejecting the revisional petition observed that in the judgment reported in A.I.R. 1978 S.C. page 1282 Honble Supreme Court have been pleased to hold that if the Judge is of the opinion that the property seized are required to be retained by the police or in the court for future use at the time of the enquiry or trial, the property shall not be released. 5. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no material to keep the money with police or court and money admitted belong to the petitioner and no useful purpose to retain in treasury, whereas State opposed the prayer for release 6. However, with regard to release of the property seized is concern is that if the property required to be retained for the purpose of investigation, enquiry or trial, it may be retained for future use and may not be released and be kept, but even if retaining the property, no useful purpose is served and is not required during investigation, enquiry or trial, it does not require to be kept and be disposed of handed over to person from whose possession it was seized on sufficient security to produce as and when required by the court. 7. However, taking into consideration the fact and circumstance of the case the money seized from the possession of the petitioner. The police report, as apparent in the order of learned C.J.M., shows that money seized is not required in investigation. The Additional District Judge, in his order has stated that Supreme Court in decision reported in A.I.R. 1978 SC 1282 has held that if Judge is in opinion that property seized are required to be retained by police or court at the time of enquiry or trial the property shall not be released. 8. However, decision reported in A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 1282 the question for consideration whether criminal court can release the property seized by the police not produce before the court. However, in this decision the Supreme Court observed that release of seized article can be decided on its own merit if the Judge is of opinion that property seized are required to be retained by the police or in the court for future use at the time of the enquiry or trial, the property shall not be released. 9. However, learned trial court had not taken this aspect of the matter whether release of the money in the interest of justice required nor the learned Additional District Judge refer that any purpose shall be served by retaining the property. 9. However, learned trial court had not taken this aspect of the matter whether release of the money in the interest of justice required nor the learned Additional District Judge refer that any purpose shall be served by retaining the property. However, in course of argument, learned counsel for the State also could not satisfy what useful purpose will serve in retaining the money nor could show that what injustice or prejudiced shall be caused in releasing the money to the accused. However, money has been deposited in treasury, there is no question of producing currency notes in specific seized form and the allegation is that money was kept for distribution to voters to influence and no allegation that money was distributed. 10. Hence having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, when no useful purpose is served and charge sheet has been submitted, the impugned order is set aside. Petition allowed with direction to lower court to release of money to the petitioner on proper security to the satisfaction of the lower court with condition to deposit and place before court as and when required by the court.