JUDGMENT : 1. Through the medium of instant petition under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 09.12.2016 passed by District Judicial Mobile Magistrate (T), Udhampur in an application seeking release of stolen articles recovered in FIR No.153/2016 dated 18.05.2016. 2. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner is a cash management company which replenishes the cash in various ATMs. The cash is collected from Bank and then deposited in the ATM by the company. The bank has outsourced the movement of cash from the bank to various ATMs to a company called FSI Payment Solution and Services Pvt. Ltd. which is also known as the Main Service Provider. Whenever there is a deficiency of cash in an ATM the MSP generates a cash indent or demand to the petitioner company and simultaneously also informs the bank about the deficiency in cash and the cash indent. That on 13.05.2016 and 16.05.2016 the main service provider generated an indent for an amount of Rs.20100000 and Rs.23200000 for replenishing cash in various ATMs. That on 17.05.2016 while conducting an audit of the ATMs a physical cash shortage of an amount totalling Rs.25277900 was found in various ATMs. That upon this, the petitioner company registered an FIR in Police Station Udhampur. On investigation being conducted by the police, two accused were arrested and recoveries were effected. Petitioner came to know that an amount of Rs.60,65,000/- and a vehicle (Hyundai i20) have been recovered from the accused. The petitioner filed an application for release of stolen articles recovered in FIR No.153/2016 before the learned Court of District Judicial Mobile Magistrate (T), Udhampur. The learned trial Court disposed of the said application filed by the petitioner directing the SHO Police Station Udhampur to deposit the money in question in the Government Treasury against proper receipt. 3. This petition has been filed on 13.12.2016 but till date respondent-State has failed to file objections despite seeking so many opportunities. On last date, Mr. Ravinder Gupta, learned AAG, was granted last and final opportunity for filing Action Taken Report with regard to order dated 09.12.2016, but he has not filed the same till date. 4. It is admitted position that the fact has not been denied by the respondent that petitioner-company is dealing with the business of replenishing the cash in various ATMs and the cash was stolen. 4. It is admitted position that the fact has not been denied by the respondent that petitioner-company is dealing with the business of replenishing the cash in various ATMs and the cash was stolen. Learned State counsel has stated at the Bar that in case money is released in favour of the petitioner-company, a suitable bank guarantee be obtained from the petitioner. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and law on the subject. 6. In case titled Sri Sandeep Jena vs. State and ors. reported in 2007 4 Crimes (HC) 483, it is held as under:- “6. Pursuant to this provision, the Director, Income Tax (Investigation), Bhubaneswar issued a warrant of authorization on 23.7.2007 in favour of the Deputy Director, Income Tax (Investigation), Sambalpur (opp. party No. 3) to require the Inspector-in-charge of Town P.S., Sambalpur to deliver him the book of account and other documents or assets as aforesaid. Admittedly, the Court is not an Officer or Authority as found in the provision quoted above. When the S.D.J.M., Sambalpur is in seisin of the matter, he is not obliged to release the seized cash in favour of the Income Tax Department. Moreover, since no assessment so far as has been made against the petitioner or M/s. Jena Enterprises, the Income Tax Department has no right to get the seized cash released in their favour. This view has been fortified in the decision J.R. Malhotra and Anr. v. The Additional Sessions Judge, Juliundur and Ors. where the Apex Court held that when there was no order of assessment and Income Tax demand, the revenue could not indirectly keep the money on the plea that there would be demand and therefore, the money should be kept with the Revenue. As mentioned earlier, Ramakrushna Khuntia does not lay any claim on the seized cash and Soumit Ranjan Jena has no objection if the cash is released in favour of his father, the present petitioner. So, in my view it would be just and proper to release the seized cash in favour of the petitioner. 7. As mentioned earlier, Ramakrushna Khuntia does not lay any claim on the seized cash and Soumit Ranjan Jena has no objection if the cash is released in favour of his father, the present petitioner. So, in my view it would be just and proper to release the seized cash in favour of the petitioner. 7. Therefore, under such facts and circumstances, the CRLMC is allowed, the impugned order dated 3.11.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in Criminal Revision No. 41 of 2006 confirming the order of the trial Court is hereby set aside and the seized cash be released in favour of the petitioner on furnishing Bank Guarantee of Rs. 1 crore.” 7. In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed and order of the Court below dated 09.12.2016 is set aside. Amount of Rs.60,65,000/- seized by the concerned police in FIR No.153/2016 and ordered to be deposited in the Government Treasury vide order dated 09.12.2016, is directed to be released in favour of the petitioner-Company subject on its furnishing bank guarantee of Rs. 60,65,000/-. 8. Disposed of in the afore mentioned terms.