Supreme Court judgment on release of currency Notes on supratnama

In the present case the appellant asserted that it had obtained'the currency notes in the normal course of its business and without any knowledge or suspicion of their having been involved in the commission of any offence. The respondents have not alleged fraud or lack of good faith on the part of the appellant. The appellant hence contended that the property in the currency notes, passed in its favour by mere delivery and the appellant "had a right to possess' the currency notes within the meaning of s. 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We do not wish to express any concluded opinion in this case on the ultimate question of liability for payment of the money as between the appellant on the one hand and respondents 1 and 2 on the other. But we are of opinion that in the circumstances of this case the High Court should have directed the return of the said currency notes to the

appellant which had the "right to possess" the currency notes within the language of s. 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Supreme Court of India

State Bank Of India vs Rajendra Kumar Singh & Ors on 25 September, 1968
Equivalent citations: 1969 AIR 401, 1969 SCR (2) 216

Print Page

Madhya Pradesh HC: Magistrate has no jurisdiction to release vehicle on supratnama which is seized for default of payment of motor vehicle tax

Jurisdiction cannot be assumed where none existed. No one then can say that it is there. Intention of statute is to secure payment of tax.

26. What thus, emerges can be summed up as under :-

(a) Taxation Authority or any officer authorised by state Government in this behalf can seize and detain a motor vehicle on "reason to believe" that there is fault or default in payment of amount of tax Under Section 16(3) of Adhiniyam. Even authorised officer, be it a Police Officer, has to operate under Adhiniyam and not Code.

Applicability of certain provisions of the Code for search or seizure is a matter of manner and procedure and does not render Section 451/457 of the Code operative in such cases.

(b) Application for release of the vehicle when seized and detained, lies to aforesaid authority and such authority is empowered to release on satisfaction that no tax is due in terms of Section 16(4) of the Adhiniyam. The "Object of Tax" is not liable to be frustrated.

(c) Aggrieved person can file an appeal Under Section 20 of the Adhiniyam on deposit of amount in question.

(d) Except Sections 451 and 457 of the Code, no other provision is shown to exist for the purpose. But Section 451 of the Code gets attracted only "when property is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial" and is concerned with "proper custody of such property pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial". Section 457 of the Code comes into play when seizure is by a Police Officer who reports to a Magistrate under the Code. It empowers the Magistrate to make an order respecting disposal or delivery "to the person entitled to the possession thereof". On seizure Under Section 16(3), Section 451 is inapplicable till stage of inquiry or trial in a Criminal Court and Section 457 of the Code cannot be invoked unless seizure is by a police officer and is reported under the Code and some one is "entitled". Person in arrear and in error is not prima facie "entitled." These two Sections, thus, do not apply till requisite conditions are shown to be satisfied. At the infant stage, recourse to Criminal Court is impermissible. Hence, only Section 16(4) and Section 20 of Adhiniyam held to be efficacious are applicable. This power cannot be usurped by any Criminal Court.

(e) "Statutory Forums" have to be approached. Resort to Section 451 or 457 of the Code is thus, impermissible. The Criminal Court thus, does not possess jurisdiction to entertain prayer for interim release of the vehicle and grant relief under the Code. Section 19 or Rules do not indicate existence of jurisdiction of Criminal Court in case of action Under Section 16(3) of the Adhiniyam.

27. Despite Section 16(4) and 20 of Adhiniyam, the Non-applicant resorted to Forum under the Code and the Criminal Court held the prayer irrecusable and granted relief of release of the vehicle under umbrella of Brahmanand's case (supra). The non-applicant, thus, shaped the case under the Code on assumption that "jurisdiction was there" on the pattern assumed by the great British explorer, George Mallory. Once he was asked as to why did he want to climb Mount Everest? To that question he had replied "Because it is there". Now we resolve the conflict and conclude that "Criminal Court has no jurisdiction in the light of Section 16(4) and 20 of the Adhiniyam for interim release of motor vehicle seized and detained by the specified authority Under Section 16(3) on Supratnama and/or surety as was done in this case". SEIZURE IS FOR TAX.

Madhya Pradesh High Court

State Of M.P. vs Rakesh Kumar Gupta on 21 April, 1998

Equivalent citations: 1998 (2) MPLJ 249

Author: A Tiwari

Bench: R Shukla, A Tiwari, N Jain

Print Page