Judgment : This application is filed by the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Unit-III, Nagpur for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Washim in Criminal Revision Application No. 5 of 2013 dated 19-3-2013. 2. Non-applicant No. 2 Sudhir Bajaj along with his driver and two of his friends was travelling in a Car from Washim to Amravati. The Car was intercepted at Mangrulpir on 24-11-2012 at about 10-30 p.m. Search of Car was carried out under the pretext that Gram-Panchayat Elections were in progress and all suspicious vehicles were required to be searched. Non-applicant No. 2 Sudhir Bajaj was found in possession of cash amount of Rs. 49,96,200/-, few cheques and demand drafts. The police seized the cash amount suspecting it to be the stolen property, for which no reasonable explanation could be given or which was not properly accounted for by non-applicant No. 2. The said search and seizure was carried out under section 41 (1) (d) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Non-applicant No. 2, his driver and two others were apprehended by the police and they were produced before the learned Magistrate on 25-11-2012 with a request that they might be remanded to judicial custody as they could not account for the money found in the Car. The learned Magistrate, however, found that there was no charge against them at all of any nature in the remand application except the fact that they were arrested in exercise of powers granted to police under section 41 (1) (d) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Non-applicant No. 2 and others were released on bail on the same day. The cash amount seized from the possession of non-applicant No. 2 was deposited in the bank under the order of the learned Magistrate dated 26-11-2012. The police had moved the learned Magistrate for depositing the amount to the bank as police did not have safe place to store such a huge cash amount. 3. Non-applicant No. 2, later on, moved the learned Magistrate under section 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code for release of cash amount and other articles seized by the police under the seizure panchanama. The learned Magistrate rejected the application. The learned Sessions Judge has allowed the revision application and has directed release of cash amount of Rs. 3. Non-applicant No. 2, later on, moved the learned Magistrate under section 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code for release of cash amount and other articles seized by the police under the seizure panchanama. The learned Magistrate rejected the application. The learned Sessions Judge has allowed the revision application and has directed release of cash amount of Rs. 49,96,200/- and other articles to non-applicant No. 2 on executing indemnity bond and undertaking for production of cash and other articles seized by the police. 4. Intimation was given to the Income Tax Department by the police on 3-12-2012 in respect of seizure of cash amount from the possession of non-applicant No. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax issued a requisition under section 132A (1) (a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the Police Officer, Police Station Mangrulpir who had seized the cash amount, as non-applicant No. 2 had failed to produce the books of account and other documents required by the Income Tax Authority under section 161 of the Income Tax Act. The requisition required the police to produce the cash amount seized by them before the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. The police could not produce the cash amount before the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax as the amount was already deposited in the bank on 26-11-2012. Requisition was issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax on 11-1-2013 and it was served on police on 14-1-2013. 5. The question, which may arise for determination in the present application is as to whether the court of Judicial Magistrate or the Sessions Judge was under obligation to produce the cash or direct the police or permit the police to produce the cash before the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax pursuant to the requisition issued under section 132-A (1) (a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. The perusal of section 132-A of the Income Tax Act gives clear impression that the authority or officer who has taken custody of books of account or other documents (in the present case cash amount) were under obligation to comply the requisition if the books of account or other documents or cash, as the case may be, are in custody of the said officer or the authority. As already stated, since in the present case cash was already deposited in the bank much prior to the requisition i.e. on 26-11-2012, the question which could arise before the Sessions Court or before this Court is as to whether the Courts were under obligation to comply the requisition. 7. At this stage, few more things are necessary to be mentioned in this order. What is pertinent to note is that though non-applicant No. 2 and others were apprehended on 24-11-2012, the police have not filed any charge-sheet against them till-to-date. Even if it is presumed that police intended to file charge-sheet for the offence punishable under section 124 of the Bombay Police Act, what is important to note here is that the limitation is already over. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor is unable to tell the Court as to whether the police are really interested in prosecuting non-applicant No. 2 and others. 8. As already stated, the prime question that needs determination whether the phrase 'officer' or 'authority' includes the Court also. This issue has been resolved by this Court in the judgment of Dy. Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Unit No. V (1) vs. Nagorao Malku Ghadge and ors., reported at 2009 (4) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 40 = 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 3665. This Court relied upon the judgment in the case of Sudruddin Javeri vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, reported at 1994 (104) Taxman 335 (AP). The Single Judge of this Court has taken a view that officer or authority under section 132A did not include the Court. The view taken by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Sudruddin Javeri vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh can be reproduced as under : "Held . The police officer who seized the property, has a duty to transport the same to the Court or to give custody thereof to any person on his executing a bond and undertaking to produce the property before the Court as and when required and to give effect to the further orders of the Court as to the disposal of the same. There can be no transfer or appropriation of any property seized by the police except under the order of the Court. There can be no transfer or appropriation of any property seized by the police except under the order of the Court. The counsel for the ITOs has conceded that S. 132A does not authorise any notice to the Court as by no stretch of imagination the Court can be identified as any officer or authority under any other law for the time being in force as contemplated under cl. (c) of S. 132A (1), r/w. cl. (a) thereof. There has been gross violation of law by the entry of the ITOs to take delivery of the properties from the police before the seizure is reported to the Court and the Court passed any order as to its custody. Property seized from the house of the petitioner ordered to be released immediately." 9. As such it is clear that the Income Tax Department even could not have made application to the court for return of property. In the present case, the powers of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax extended to the Police Station Officer of Mangrulpir in whose custody the cash was initially lying and that power ceased to exist as soon as the property was directed to be deposited in the bank by the court as by virtue of court's order the property has become custodia legis and it is the court only who could have decided as to in what manner the property could be disposed of. 10. As such, in my considered opinion, there is no substance in the petition and the petition needs to be dismissed. Incidentally it may be mentioned here that there is no paucity of legal provision in the Income Tax Act under which the authorities may recover the tax and penalty, if any, from non-applicant No. 2. 11. The petition stands dismissed.