JUDGMENT : SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA, J. Heard Mr.Y.S.Mannan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.J.Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application has been preferred under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for setting aside and quashing the impugned order dated 05.05.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M), Guwahati seeking zimma of seized cash amount of Rs. 22,70,000/- (Rupees twenty two lakhs, seventy thousand) only in connection with P.R.C. Case No. 758/2024 pending before the Court of Additional CJM, Kamrup (M), Guwahati and Impugned order dated 05.05.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), Guwahati and thereby dismissing the zimma petition of the petitioner in connection with P.R.C. Case No. 758/2024 pending before the Court of Additional CJM, Kamrup (M), Guwahati. 3. The facts of the case may be briefly stated that on 14.07.2023, the respondent No. 2/informant lodged an FIR before the O/C Special Task Force by stating that, on 14.07.2023 based on information, at about 8:20 a.m. a police team from STF under the leadership of Inspector Vikram Basumatary carried out a search operation for the miscreants and during the time of search operation, one of the suspects detected travelling from the direction of Jorabat towards Guwahati in a blue colour Hyundai i20 car bearing Registration No. ML05-U/1216, so the target vehicle was tailed into Guwahati city in order to identify and apprehend the receiver of the suspected stolen gold. On tailing the target vehicle, it stopped and waited by the roadside at Lalganesh for few minutes when one person arrived alone on a Hero Honda Karizma motorcycle bearing Registration No. AS-01-AM-2546 and stopped beside the target vehicle. Both the suspects exchanged the suspected stolen gold and the payback amount, after which the motorcyclist sped away amidst the traffic. As such, the target vehicle was followed and was intercepted at Jalukbari and during search of the said vehicle 03 (three) packets containing huge amount of cash money, mostly in Rs. 500 denominations and one bundle of Rs.200 denominations wrapped in a newspaper, were recovered from inside the vehicle. So, the entire cash amount of Rs. 22 lakhs and 70 thousand and a Hyundai i20 car were seized in presence of the available witnesses. 500 denominations and one bundle of Rs.200 denominations wrapped in a newspaper, were recovered from inside the vehicle. So, the entire cash amount of Rs. 22 lakhs and 70 thousand and a Hyundai i20 car were seized in presence of the available witnesses. Thereafter, the suspect Sri Himangshu Paul, a native of Meghalaya led the informant to rented house of other suspect namely "G. Marwadi" @ Sri Krishan Kanwar Kadel in the locality of Arya Nagar, Natun Basti, near Sharab Bhatti, under Bharalumukh Police Station. Thereafter, one round and flat piece of gold metal weighing 585 grams was recovered and seized along with one gold melting machine and other instruments used for gold articles from him. Accordingly, after receiving of the written FIR, a case has been registered vide STF Police Station Case No. 07/2023 under Section 379/411 of Indian Penal Code and started investigation. 4. That the petitioner stated that he is a businessman by profession having Proprietorship of Trading in Gold and the name of the establishment of the petitioner is “Assam Bullion”. In this regard, the petitioner is having GST Registration Certificate, Trade licence and all other documents as required under law to carry out the business. 5. On completion of investigation, the I.O submitted the charge sheet. The short question for decision is whether there is any necessity for the cash amount seized for the purpose of the trial and if not whether the petitioner is entitled to the custody thereof. 6. It appears that the gold articles seized from the petitioner has already been directed to be given in custody of the petitioner by order dated 04.03.2025 passed by this Court in Crl. Pet. No. 974/2024 upon executing a bond of Rs. 3 lakhs. The petitioner had filed an application for zimma of the case before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(Metro) by order dated 30.07.2024, the prayer was rejected on the ground that the prosecution may be required to produce the seized articles before the Court in future to prove the veracity of the case. A subsequent zimma application was also rejected by order dated 05.05.2025 by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(Metro), Guwahati. 7. In view of the earlier rejection of the zimma applications of the petitioner, and by observing that there is no change of circumstances since the last dates on which the petitions were rejected. 8. A subsequent zimma application was also rejected by order dated 05.05.2025 by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(Metro), Guwahati. 7. In view of the earlier rejection of the zimma applications of the petitioner, and by observing that there is no change of circumstances since the last dates on which the petitions were rejected. 8. Learned Additional PP upon query from the Court obtained instructions and has informed the Court that the seized money has been deposited in the Treasury. It is also further informed that the I.O has not prepared any inventory of the seized money with reference to the number of notes, denominations, serial numbers, etc. nor has taken any photographs thereof for the purpose of reducing evidence at the trial. Since the seized money has been deposited with the Treasury, the currency notes have lost their individual identity and have merged with the cash available in the Treasury and would have found its way to the Bank. In other words, there is no way that the prosecution can produce the very same currency notes allegedly seized from the petitioner and consequently, there is no purpose in withholding the said money from the petitioner and from circulation in the economy. 9. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat , reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283 , the Supreme Court had held as follows:- “14. In case, where such articles are not handed over either to the complainant or to the person from whom such articles are seized or to its claimant, then the court may direct that such articles be kept in bank lockers. Similarly, if articles are required to be kept in police custody, it would be open to the SHO after preparing proper panchnama to keep such articles in a bank locker. In any case, such articles should be produced before the Magistrate within a week of their seizure. If required, the court may direct that such articles be handed back to the investigating officer for further investigation and identification. However, in no set of circumstances, the investigating officer should keep such articles in custody for a longer period for the purposes of investigation and identification. For currency notes. similar procedure can be followed.” 10. In the instant case, the Investigation Officer has not followed the aforesaid procedure by making proper panchnama of the notes and depositing it in bank lockers. For currency notes. similar procedure can be followed.” 10. In the instant case, the Investigation Officer has not followed the aforesaid procedure by making proper panchnama of the notes and depositing it in bank lockers. Instead, the entire amount has been deposited under the appropriate Head of Account in the Treasury and therefore, as noticed herein above, the very same notes can no longer be extracted from the Treasury for the purpose of the trial. 11. In view of the above, there is no scope for producing the notes before the Court at the trial. Furthermore, there is no other claimant for the aforesaid notes and in fact, no aggrieved person has lodged any FIR in respect of any stolen gold that can be connected to the present case, which itself is an admitted fact. 12. In view of the above, I do not see any impediment in granting Zimma of the money equivalent to the seized money to the present petitioner upon execution of appropriate bond/Bank Guarantee as may be deemed appropriate by the learned Trial Court. 13. It is ordered accordingly. 14. Petitioner may file appropriate application before the learned Trial Court. 15. The impugned order is consequently set aside and the instant petition is allowed. 16. The Criminal Petition stands disposed of accordingly.