Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 22 (JK)

G. H. Hassan Pachu v. State

2022-02-07

SINDHU SHARMA

body2022
JUDGMENT : SINDHU SHARMA, J. 1. The petitioner has invoked the inherent power of this Court under Section 561-A of Cr.P.C. for quashing the judgment and order dated 16.12.2014 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ramban, by virtue of which the application of the petitioner seeking release of Rs. 2,50,000/- and Rs. 720/- which was seized by the Police from him has been dismissed. 2. On 20.10.2009, S.H.O. Police Station, Banihal, received an information that the petitioner, an over ground worker was moving with some money which he had to handover to the District Commander Ayaz code Mussa and during checking of the Vehicle No. JK-14A/8262, it was found that four persons were travelling in the Tata Sumo, including the petitioner while three of them were empty handed but the petitioner was having a bag containing 150 notes of Rs. 1,000/- denomination and 200 notes of Rs. 500/- denomination. The petitioner was also in possession of three Nokia mobile phones and a letter on the letter pad of Lashkar-e-Toiba. 3. The petitioner was charged under Sections 17, 20, 21 and 40 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 to which he pleaded not guilty. The trial Court dismissed the Challan and acquitted the accused vide order dated 27.02.2013, but the trial Court did not direct release of any amount or goods seized in his favour. The petitioner, therefore, filed an application before the trial Court for release of the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- with thirteen percent interest, cash amount of Rs. 720/- three Nokia Mobile sets, one horse, seven sheep and three goats. This application was filed on 26.08.2014, which the trial Court dismissed on 16.12.2014 by holding as under: “6. The applicant neither in denial to the charge against him nor on denial of incriminating evidence under Section 342 Cr.P.C. against him, deposed that he was carrying amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees two lacs fifty thousand) for depositing in J&K Bank against the loan obtained by him for the purchase of Tata Sumo and the applicant never claimed the said amount. Therefore, the Hawala money of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees two lacs fifty thousand) cannot be released in his favour.” 4. 2,50,000/- (Rupees two lacs fifty thousand) for depositing in J&K Bank against the loan obtained by him for the purchase of Tata Sumo and the applicant never claimed the said amount. Therefore, the Hawala money of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees two lacs fifty thousand) cannot be released in his favour.” 4. Aggrieved of order dated 16.12.2014, the petitioner filed the present petition under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. for quashing the said order passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramban, on the ground that the same is contrary to the judgment of the trial Court, therefore, it is the abuse of the process of the law. 5. Apart from the amount, in this application, the petitioner had sought release of one horse, three Nokia mobile sets, Rs. 7,200/- a wrist watch, seven sheep and three goats. However, the goats, sheep and horse are not the case property and these were attached during investigation and were kept on the Supurdanama for which a separate process is required to be followed. The petitioner in this petition seeks release of an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- and Rs. 720/- only. An amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- was seized from a bag which the accused was carrying. As per the letter head of Mujahideen Lashker-e-Toiba, the said amount was to be paid to the District Commander Mujahideen Lashker-e-Toiba. Unfortunately, there is no reference of this letter in the judgment of the trial Court acquitting the accused, though, its translated version in Urdu is also placed on the file. 6. The trial Court has rightly held that the petitioner neither claimed the said amount during trial by filing an application nor he claimed the amount when was examined under Section 342 of Cr.P.C. 7. A question was put to the accused by the trial Court that an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- has been recovered from him, to this, his reply was that the witnesses have not proved any case against him. He could have claimed the money by stating that he was carrying the same to be deposited in the J&K Bank against the loan he had obtained. Another question was regarding the statement of S.H.O. who found the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- in the bag of the accused and requested the Dy. S.P. to investigate the case, who prepared the seizure memo of the amount. In reply to this, the accused did not claim the amount. Another question was regarding the statement of S.H.O. who found the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- in the bag of the accused and requested the Dy. S.P. to investigate the case, who prepared the seizure memo of the amount. In reply to this, the accused did not claim the amount. Referring to the statement of PW-10 Abdul Majeed and also referring to the amount seized by the Dy. S.P. the accused did not claim the money again though he had ample time to say so. As such, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramban, was right in holding in his observation in Para-6 of the order dated 16.12.2014. 8. It is for the first time in this petition filed under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. the claim for the said amount is being laid by the petitioner on the ground that he was carrying the amount which was to be deposited in the J&K Bank for liquidation of loan but there is no explanation as to from where he had collected this amount and in which account he was going to deposit the same in the J&K Bank. The petitioner knows the person from whom the amount was received by him as stated in the letter of Mujahideen Lashkar-e-Toiba. This money belongs to the organization in view of the silence maintained by the petitioner in claiming the said amount either during the trial or in his statement made under Section 342 of Cr.P.C. 9. The petitioner has made out a false case that he was carrying the amount to deposit the same in the Bank that too without disclosing the particulars of the account in which the amount was to be deposited. 10. In my considered opinion, it is all an afterthought story, put forward by the petitioner to claim the amount which does not, in fact, belongs to him. The application was rightly rejected by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Ramban, vide order dated 16.12.2014 and even the trial Court did not release the money. The question of releasing three sets of Nokia mobile phones which do not bear the name of the owner does not arise as the same has not sought by him. There is no evidence that Rs. 720/- was found from the personal search of the accused. It is, therefore, a false claim laid by the petitioner and hence rightly rejected by the Court below. There is no evidence that Rs. 720/- was found from the personal search of the accused. It is, therefore, a false claim laid by the petitioner and hence rightly rejected by the Court below. 11. In view of the aforesaid, there is no merit in this petition, therefore, the same is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected applications.