Md. Muzahir Hussain @ Mozahir Hussain vs The State Of Bihar & Anr.

Date : 07-08-2026 Assailing the order dated 04.07.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Criminal Revision No. 142 of 2016, dismissing the revision application so preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 14.03.2016 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali in connection with Hajipur Sadar P.S. Case No. 486 of 2015 whereby he has rejected the application of petitioner for release of the amount of Rs. 5,04,000/- which was seized by the police during election.

On 22.09.2015, while the Flying Squad Magistrate, deputed for conducting routine check-up of the vehicles during on-going legislative assembly elections, one Scorpio bearing registration no. BR 01PC/7932 was intercepted and in course of search Rs. 5,04,000/- was recovered from the school bag kept in the vehicle. Three persons namely Md. Mujahir Hussain, Md. Nahid Hussain and Md. Manzar Ali Ansari were found sitting in the vehicle. No satisfactory explanation was given by Md. Mujahir Hussain with respect to the source, possession and purpose of carrying huge cash to the tune of Rs. 5,04,000/- and neither an appeal has been preferred against the aforesaid seizure of the amount on 22.09.2015 till 05:00pm of 28.09.2015 before the District Level Committee in terms of the statutory provisions for such kind of seizure during election period.

In these circumstances, the Flying Squad Magistrate deposited the aforesaid amount in the District Treasury of Vaishali at Hajipur and accordingly, the instant FIR was instituted as Hajipur Sadar P.S. Case No. 486 of 2015 dated 29.09.2015 under Sections 414, 171(B), 171(C) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 123 of The Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount so seized from the aforesaid Scorpio exclusively belongs to the petitioner which he had withdrawn from his account with Canara Bank situated in Janakpuri, D-Block, Delhi and reasons so cited for such withdrawal is to attend the marriage ceremony of his nephew, Md. Sarwar Alam, which was to be contracted on 04.10.2015.

He also submits that having alighted at Patna Railway Station, the petitioner through his Scorpio had proceeded towards his village in the district of Motihari, but mid-way, the Executive Magistrate intercepted the vehicle at Vaishali and during search, Rs. 5,04,000/- was found in the school bag kept in the vehicle. He submits that in-spite of all the documents including the marriage card having been shown to the Executive Magistrate, but he refused to listen and insisted on seizing the aforesaid amount on the pretext of on-going election.

At this stage, learned counsel also points out that the petitioner was never informed by the deputed Executive Magistrate that he has a remedy of filing an appeal before the District Level Committee constituted for considering such kind of seizure and for release of the seized article during election period, on account of which the petitioner could not file a proper appeal within a period of seven days, as stipulated in the Act, before the District Level Committee for release of his aforesaid amount.

In support of his contention that Rs. 5,04,000/- is his own lawful amount which he had withdrawn from his account with Canara Bank, Janakpuri, Delhi and in order to substantiate such claim, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Annexure 2, 2/1 and 3 as appended to the instant application which are a copy of bank statement, marriage invitation card and income tax return for the assessment year for the year 2014-15.

It is also submitted that the petitioner has a very flourishing business of fashionable garments and he runs a shop, namely, Sonu Fashions which is located at R.Z. - 16A/14, Gali No. 5/11, Main Sagarpur, Delhi, 46 and transaction of the firm was being done through the account no. 5122201000007, a current account opened for usual daily transactions relating to his business and from that very account, amount of Rs. 5,50,000 had been withdrawn on 10.09.2015 which is evident from Annexure 2, the bank statement. Thereafter, the petitioner left for his native place, Motihari to attend the marriage ceremony of his nephew during which in between Hajipur and his village in the district of Motihari the aforesaid amount was seized by the Magistrate leading the Flying Squad along with Police without any rhyme and reason, simply citing the rules which are in force during election of Legislative Assembly.

Challenging the aforesaid seizure by the Executive Magistrate leading the Flying Squad, the petitioner filed an application before the learned C.J.M., Vaishali at Hajipur for release of his amount of Rs. 5,04,000, but, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected his application vide order dated 14.03.2016 merely on the ground that while granting provisional bail to the petitioner, learned Additional Sessions Judge VI has put a condition that provisional bail of the petitioners and other accused persons will be confirmed only after complete verification of address of his native place, i.e., Motihari, but, till date, the same has not been verified by the Police, hence he refused to release the aforesaid amount till completion of both the conditions in favour of the petitioner, i.e., intimation be given to the Income Tax Department which has not been given by the police and verification of the address of petitioner in Motihari, the native place of the petitioner.

Against the order passed by the learned C.J.M., Vaishali at Hajipur, the petitioner preferred a revision application vide Cr. Rev. No. 142 of 16 before the learned Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur, who also, without properly considering the grounds so furnished by the petitioner, dismissed the revision application and refused to release the seized amount of Rs. 5,04,000 in favour of the petitioner. In his concluding remarks, the learned Sessions Judge has stated that:-

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur and learned Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur whereby they refused to release the aforesaid amount in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing an application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing both the aforesaid orders and in consequence release the amount so seized by the police on the pretext of on-going election, as the same have been passed without properly examining and assessing the evidence and explanation so furnished on behalf of the petitioner.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the amount of Rs. 5,04,000 was seized during election period and it is known to everybody that model code of conduct remained in force during such period and anybody carrying such huge amount must carry lawful documents, indisputably showing or proving their claim over such amount and on demand by the police during search, it is to be produced in order to satisfy the authorities that this amount is not being carried to influence the voters and to rig the polls.

He also submits that it is onerous duty of the police and deputed Flying Squad Magistrate to check every vehicle in order to prevent malpractice during the election time and in course of such routine search, this huge amount of Rs. 5,04,000 was recovered from the possession of the petitioner, which he was carrying in his Scorpio and on being asked by the police, the petitioner could not furnish sufficient explanation proving his bonafide claim with respect to the source, possession and claim over the aforesaid amount.

The learned A.P.P. vehemently supports both the orders passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and learned Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur terming those to be perfectly legal and have been passed having considered all the reports so placed before them and on being satisfied that the petitioner could not be able to prove his claim over the aforesaid amount and more so, in view of the fact that his address of native place could not be verified by the police, till such an application was heard by both the learned Courts at District Level, there is no illegality in the orders passed by both the learned Courts and as such this petition is fit to be dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents brought on record as well as both the orders passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and learned Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur.

Learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly submitted that the petitioner being an ordinary businessman, was carrying his business in Delhi of fashionable garments through his business shop styled as Sonu Fashions. He is having a very flourishing and thriving business which is evident from the income tax returns and other documents and his bank statement appended to this application. It is also not in dispute, as is evident from the bank statement, as annexed as Annexure 2 to this application that on 10.09.2015 and 17.09.2015, the petitioner has withdrawn Rs. 5.50 lakhs and Rs. 4 lakhs respectively and thereafter, the petitioner left for his native place, i.e., Motihari and on 22.09.2015 his vehicle was intercepted midway at Vaishali and in course of search, the amount of Rs. 5,04,000 was recovered.

From perusal of F.I.R., it is evident that the case has been registered for offences under Sections 414, 171B, 171C of the I.P.C. which deals with assisting in concealment of stolen property (Section 414), bribery (Section 171B) and undue influence at elections (Section 171C) and Section 123 of Representation of Places Act, 1951 which deals with corrupt practices, but, in course of either search or thereafter police have not found any evidence connecting the petitioner, even remotely to any political parties or linking the petitioner to any act of bribery which is being done either by petitioner or on his behalf and offering any kind of amount to any officers by way of illegal gratification in order to induce such person for committing any act which is prejudical to the interest of either of the political parties or any of the electorates participating in such election.

Moreover, nor has it come in course of investigation, that the petitioner has exercised any kind of undue influence in favour of any of the political parties or candidates in order to to interfere with the free exercise of any electoral rights of any of the electorate/voter. Further, no evidence has come nor any material has been brought in course of investigation connecting the petitioner to any crime with respect to assisting in concealment of any stolen property. It is an admitted position that no complaint either in the form of F.I.R. or in the form of informatory application or any written complaint before any Court of law has been filed with respect to such seized amount of Rs. 5,04,000 that the aforesaid amount has been stolen from anybody else. In absence of such kind of information, by no stretch of imagination, the petitioner could be linked to the offence as defined under Section 414 of the I.P.C.. In these circumstances, all these offences under Sections 414, 171(B), 171(C) are not made out against the petitioner.

The aspect of withdrawal of the amount from the account of the petitioner with Canara Bank, D-Block, Janakpuri, Delhi has not even been verified by the police, till date, which is evident from the case diary. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor could not be able to show any paragraph of the case diary which could show that any endeavor has been made by the police to verify the credentials of the petitioner, either with respect to his identity or with respect to the factum of withdrawal of the aforesaid amount from the Canara Bank account of petitioner at Delhi. Even the learned Courts below have not taken any pain to get the aforesaid facts verified by the police before passing the order impugned which is a must in order to decide any claim with respect to the release of amount.

As evident from the records of the case including the case diary attached with the file, as has been called for, by this Court, that any semblance of evidence as has been collected by the police in course of investigation linking the petitioner to either of the offences as stipulated in the F.I.R.. In fact, perusal of the record as well as the case diary does not reflect any kind of imputation with respect to the guilt of the petitioner. Being a businessman, the petitioner withdrew some amount from the bank, for attending the marriage ceremony of his nephew, as claimed, at his native place, no contrary evidence has come to the fore repudiating and disputing the aforesaid claim of the petitioner with respect of him being the lawful owner of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 5,04,000.

In this backdrop, both the orders dated 14.03.2016 and 04.07.2016 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate as well as the learned Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur, in connection with P.S. Case No. 486/2015 and Cr. Rev. No. 142 of 2016 are hereby quashed and set aside with the further direction to the petitioner to file a proper application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali enclosing all the documents in support of his claim with respect to his entitlement to the aforesaid amount of Rs. 5,04,000/- as well as copies of his Aadhar Card and Pan Card and other relevant documents which could be germane at this stage to verify his identity, if such an application is filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali, he is duty bound and under obligation to consider the same and get it verified within a period of eight weeks from the date of filing of such application and pass a reasoned and speaking order positively adjudicating the claim of the petitioner.

In case, the identity of the petitioner is verified and withdrawal of amount from the aforesaid bank is equally corroborated, the Court will pass an order favouring the petitioner with respect to the release of the aforesaid amount. If the contrary facts are emerged in course of investigation and enquiry, then the Court will pass necessary orders in accordance with law.

The time so stipulated hereinabove within which entire exercise is to be completed, has to be strictly adhered to, since this matter is almost a decade old matter where a citizen is running from pillar to post to get his lawful amount, as claimed, released.

Ex consequenti, this application stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.

All pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed off.