High CourtsDivision Bench(2005) 04 MP CK 0071

Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Bhopal vs Gulamnabi

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 19 April 2005 · Citation: (2006) 152 TAXMAN 55

HON’BLE JUDGES
A. K. Awasthy, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Reference No. 788 of 2004 19 April 2005

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 294 words

Arguments heard on the revision filed u/s 401 of the Cr. P.C. against the order, dated 14-7-2004 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS, Indore in Special Case No. 16/04 wherein the applicant was to hand over the amount of Rs. 8,02,764 to the Income Tax department was kept in abeyance.

2.

That on 4-4-2004, P.S. Juni, Indore, has seized from the house of respondent No. 1 Gulam Nabi, Brown Sugar weighing 1 kg. 500 gm. and 26 kg. Opium and also the cash of Rs. 8,02,764. That the case was registered against NA No. 1 u/s 8/18 and 8/21 of the NDPS Act and thereafter wife of NA No. 1/accused Gulam Nabi, Le., NA No. 2 Noor Jahan was also impleaded as a accused for the offence punishable u/s 29 of the NDPS Act. That after framing of the charge by the learned Special Judge, the statement of the witnesses of the prosecution is being recorded.

3.

That the applicant-income tax department has initiated the proceedings u/s 132A of the Income Tax Act against Gulam Nabi for un-counted income of Rs. 8,02,764 and directed him to hand over the money to the Income Tax department. The Police was also noticed accordingly.

4.

The issue before the learned Special Judge is whether the seized amount of Rs. 8,02,764 is liable to be confiscated u/s 62 of the NDPS Act. If it is found that the amount is not to be confiscated u/s 62 of the NDPS Act then the question of handing over the amount to the applicant will arise.

5.

The learned trial court has rightly held that the application is premature and it has not committed any mistake in rejecting it.

6.

The revision is without any force and it is, hereby, dismissed.