Cr. Appeal No.1385 of 1995
Satish Chandra Agrawal State of M.P. And others
25.6.2010
Shri H.S. Dubey, counsel for the appellant.
Smt. Sheetal Dubey, G.A. for the respondent.
This appeal is directed under Section 454 of Cr.P.C.
seeking refund of the amount directed to be forfeited, as per
Section 452 of Cr.P.C. while pronouncing the judgment dated
7.8.1995 in Special Case No.23 of 94. The appellant charge
sheeted for an offence under Section 20(B)(II) of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,1985 but the charge
was not found proved beyond the reasonable doubt, as the
procedure prescribed has not been followed by the
Investigating Officer, however, acquitted by the trial Court
from the said charge. While acquitting the appellant at the
time of pronouncing the judgment, the cannabis and the
amount of Rs.5014/- seized has been directed to be
confiscated with an observation that such an amount may
have been earned by appellant on selling cannabis.
Being aggrieved by such a judgment of confiscation of
the amount recovered from the appellant, this appeal has
been filed.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
submitted that once the charge under Section 20(B)(II) of
the Act has not been established by the prosecution beyond
doubt, and the appellant has been acquitted, the confiscation
of the amount which is recovered from him by seizer memo
Annexure P-3, is wholly unwarranted. However, cash amount
as seized and confiscated under Section 452 Cr.P.C. may be
directed to be released in his favour.
On the other hand Smt. Sheetal Dubey, learned
Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent opposed the
Cr. Appeal No.1385 of 1995
Satish Chandra Agrawal State of M.P. And others
25.6.2010
prayer as made by the appellant but she is not in a position
to demonstrate the fact that even on acquittal from the said
charge, how the cash amount which is recovered from the
appellant may be ordered to be confiscated by the Court
concerned.
After having heard the learned counsel appearing on
both sides and considering the facts that the charge under
Section 20(B)(II) which was framed against the appellant was
not found proved because of non-following the procedure as
prescribed under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act,1985, therefore, he was acquitted from the
said charge. The amount of Rs.5014/- was seized from him
as per the seizure memo Ex.P-3. In absence of proving the
charge for which the said amount was recovered, the
direction to confiscate the said amount as issued by the trial
Court is not in accordance with law. Accordingly, this appeal
is allowed. The direction of confiscation of the seized amount
of Rs.5014/- issued by the trial Court is set aside and the
appellant is held entitled to receive such an amount of
Rs.5014/- by moving an appropriate application before the
competent authority.
Accordingly the appeal is allowed.
(J.K. Maheshwari)
JUDGE
vj