Whether court should release money seized in an offence of gambling on Supratnama?

If one can have a casual look at this section of law, with the explanation provided therefore, Explanation (b) provided to the main section clearly applied to the facts of the present case and that, therefore, the cash of Rs. 1,31,571/- is clearly deemed to be the "property" involved in this case and since it was to be under the judicial custody, section 451 of the Code clearly attracted. If it is so, one has to render the workings adumberated in the main section viz. an obligation in-built in the said section empowering the Court to make such order as it thinks fit which would clearly mean depending upon the circumstances and facts of each case. Therefore, it cannot be made as a general universal rule that any property which is produced before the trial Court involved in such case can automatically be ordered to be returned under the section. The power given to this Court is limited to the extent that while passing such order under this section, the Court must give proper and adequate reason for returning such property by way of interim custody.

12. The legislature cannot be said to have intended the disposal of currency notes in such a way that it would hamper impartial and fair trial. Since the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is to be commence shortly and the accused are ready to face the trial, it will not be proper or conducive for the Court to direct custody of seized property i.e. currency notes to be returned to the applicant on execution of supratnama simply because currency notes were seized which have nexus with the offence of gambling, would fetch interest is no ground for releasing the property in favour of the applicant because it would hamper impartial and fair trial.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Application No. 242 of 2003

Decided On: 21.03.2003

Chandu Chaitram Aswani Vs.  State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.T. Kharche, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/1743/2003,2003 ALL MR (Cri)1335

Print Page

When money seized from accused should be returned to him and not to complainant?

 It seems to us that this order cannot be sustained in view of the clear findings of fact given by the Magistrate to the effect that no offence was committed in respect of the sum of Rs. 463 and that it did not belong to the complainant. It was on the basis of these findings that Pushkar Singh was acquitted and the amount recovered from his house was ordered to be delivered to him. Unless it was found that an offence was committed in respect of this sum, there was no jurisdiction to the High Court to order the payment of this amount to Mst. Kaushillya Bai. We have not been able to appreciate the view of the High Court that though the stolen property consisted of currency notes those notes may have been changed by the accused.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 1951

Decided On: 18.09.1951

Pushkar Singh  Vs. State of Madhya Bharat and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Saiyid Fazl Ali, M.C. Mahajan and Vivian Bose, JJ.

Citation: AIR 1953 SC 508

Print Page

On dissolution, all assets of partnership firm are converted into money I.e. movable property.

As observed in the aforesaid, the value of the property is to be
assessed and the partners are entitled to get the adjustment of their
shares from the amount according to the share held in the
partnership firm. Consequently, the question of law is answered that
on dissolution, the immovable property of a partnership firm
converted into money, therefore, looses the character of immovable
property in the hands of the partner and the partners are entitled to
receive their proportionate share in residue of the property being
money represent the value of the property.
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Second Appeal No. 865 / 1998

Smt. Shanti Bai Agrawal & Others
VERSUS

Smt. Uma Bai Agarwal 

Print Page

Whether money advanced by company comes within scope of money lenders Act?

The fourth ground raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioners is with regard to lending loan without having any
licence to do business under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) 
Money Lenders Act, 1349 F.  Placing reliance on a judgment of this
Court reported in Mrs. K.Sudersanam V. S.Venkata Rao  and as  
there was no licence to do money lending business, he submits that
a complaint under Section 138 of the Act is not maintainable. Since
the complainant is a company established for a business other than
money lending, he submits that the second respondent could not 
have lent money without obtaining licence under the provisions of
the Act.  He thus contends that any default in payment of money is
not enforceable under law and the present complaint under
Section 138 of the Act is not maintainable.  As stated above, the
petitioners are strangers to the second respondent and they came
into contact with the complainant only through one T.Sateesh
Kumar, who is the friend of accused No.2.
           Keeping in view the facts in issue, the said argument of the
learned counsel for the petitioners needs to be tested with the
judgment relied upon by him.
                  A reading of the judgment of this Court referred to above
(K.Sudersanam (10 Supra) would disclose that in order to fall
within the definition of money lender it is not enough merely to
show that a man had on several occasions lent money at 
remunerative rates of interest but that there must be a certain
degree of system and continuity about the transactions and that
the definition of money lender in the Act does not include those
who advanced money casually.   In case on hand, there is no
material to show that there was a certain degree of system and
continuity in doing money lending business.  On the other hand,
the complaint refers to only one transaction.
          Apart from that the word money lender is defined in
Section 2 (7) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Money 
Lenders Act, 1349 F which reads as under. 
 Money lender means a person including a pawn broker, 
who, within the meaning of this Act, only advances loan in
the ordinary course of his business or does so along with
other business, and shall also include the legal
representative of such person, and the person claiming to
be his representative on the ground of succession or
assignment or otherwise.
         The word loan mentioned in Section 2 (7) of the Andhra
Pradesh (Telangana Area) Money Lenders Act, 1349 F is defined in 
Section 2 (4)  of the Act which is as under: -
 loan means a loan secured or unsecured, advanced on interest in
cash or in kind, and shall include every transaction which is in
substance a loan, but shall not include the following.
Section 2 (4) (d) of the Act reads as under:
a loan advanced by a bank, a co-operative society or a company
         A conjoint reading  of Section 2 (4) (d) and 2 (7) of the
Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Money Lenders Act, 1349 F would   
clearly indicate that the money advanced by a company in the
form of loan is excluded from the purview of the Andhra Pradesh
(Telangana Area) Money Lenders Act, 1349 F.   Viewed from any 
angle, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners does
not stand to merit.
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR          

CRIMINAL PETITION No.6355 OF 2013     

dATED:28-01-2014 

M/s. Vasundhara Projects Pvt. Ltd.,
Vs    
                
The State of A.P. 
         
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6355 OF 2013   
Citation: 2014(2)ALD(Cri)883, 2015ALLMR(Cri)100, 2014 (3) ALT (Crl.) 193 (A.P.)  

Print Page