Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1195 (CAL)

Siddharth Banthia v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2011-08-29

ASHIM KUMAR ROY, J.N.PATEL

body2011
JUDGMENT J.N. Patel, C.J. 1. THIS appeal was taken up for hearing along with Criminal Appeal No. 760 of 2005. Thereafter on conclusion of the hearing of CRA No. 760 of 2005, as none appeared for appellant the appeal came to be adjourned in order to give fair opportunity to the appellant to appear before this Court and argue the appeal, but none appeared in spite of repeated opportunity being given. In view of the fact that the appellant failed to prosecute the appeal, we propose to dispose it of along with CRA No. 760 of 2005 with the assistance of the learned Public Prosecutor on merits. 2. THE original complainant has preferred this appeal aggrieved by the decision of the learned Sessions Judge in S.C. No. 13 of 2004 wherein by judgment and order dated 30th and 31st August, 2005, the learned Trial Court ordered confiscation of 4,000 US$ ( Mat. Ext. XIV and XIV/1) seized from the house of one Rajpal Singh of Ludhiana, Punjab. It is the contention of the appellant that the learned Trial Judge without assigning any reason whatsoever directed that the seized US Dollar being (Mat Ext. XIV and XIV/1) confiscated to the State, though it found that the accused Monojot Raju Sood @ Manjit Raju Sood was guilty of having committed offences under Sections 489A, 489B, 489C and 420 of Indian Penal Code. It is the contention of the appellant that he had paid valuable consideration to M/s NPR Finance Ltd. for obtaining the seized foreign currency and is, therefore, entitled to receive the same. According to him, even the accused Manjit Raju Sood has taken a stand that the US Dollars were not seized from his possession and has not made any claim with regard to the seized foreign currency and no other person has stake his claim over the seized foreign currency and, therefore, as it was proceeds of crime for which the accused has been convicted he being defacto complainant ought to have been returned 4,000 US $. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the state proposes to take appropriate action against the complainant, i.e. the appellant herein, NPR Finance Ltd. and the accused along with the person from whom the US Dollars came to be seized for violation of Foreign Exchange Management (Current Account Transaction) Rules, 2000 as these Dollars were obtained in breach of the aforesaid Rules and provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management, Act 2000. It is submitted that the Trial Court was justified in confiscating the seized US Dollars for this very reason and, as nobody raised any claim. Therefore, no interference is called for with the decision of the Trial Court confiscating the US Dollar to the State Government. 3. WE find that 4,000 US$ came to be seized from the house of one Rajpal Singh who is the brother in law of the convict Monojit Raju Sood @ Manjit Raju Sood and not from the accused in the case. Further no evidence has been led by the prosecution or the appellant Siddharth Banthia to show that 4,000 US$ belong to the appellant defacto complainant or he will be otherwise entitled to receive the same having been cheated by the accused Monojit Raju Sood @ Manjit Raju Sood and, therefore, the decision of the learned Trial Court in confiscating the dollar to the state does not appear to be unwarranted. It is well settled that learned Trial Court has no duty to enquire into the title of the property seized in the course of investigation of crime and ordinarily if such property is not required and the person who is found entitled to its immediate possession is ascertainable, the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court will return the property to him or to such person or persons from whose possession the property has been seized. In the Trial of Monojit Raju Sood @ Manjit Raju Sood it has been established that 4,000 US$ were seized from the house of Rajpal singh and there is no evidence to show that the US Dollars belong to the appellant defacto complainant Siddharth Banthia. By interim order dated 28th October, 2003 the learned Magistrate has permitted the applicant to keep the foreign currency of 4,000 US $ with him pending trial. 4. By interim order dated 28th October, 2003 the learned Magistrate has permitted the applicant to keep the foreign currency of 4,000 US $ with him pending trial. 4. WE therefore, dismiss the appeal with liberty to the appellant that he may establish his right to the 4,000 US$ confiscated by the Trial Court by filing appropriate Civil Suit within sixty days of this order and claim from the State Government. The appellant-defacto complainant shall forthwith deposit the sum of 4,000 US$ in Government treasury with the aforesaid observation the appeal is dismissed.