Seized currency remains non-releasable to petitioner if outstanding income tax liabilities exceed requisitioned assets.

During Assembly Election checks in 2019, police apprehended three individuals and seized cash amounting to Rs. 29.98 Lakhs, leading to the registration of Chainpur P.S. Case No. 297 of 2019

On November 22, 2019, the Income Tax Department (Opposite Party No. 2) issued a warrant requisitioning the seized cash

The petitioner, claiming ownership as a contractor, filed for the release of the money, which was rejected by the S.D.J.M., Palamau on July 14, 2020, and subsequently by the Addl. Sessions Judge on February 19, 2021

Despite the acquittal of the accused persons in the primary criminal case on August 27, 2024, the petitioner’s subsequent application for release was rejected on September 21, 2021, leading to this revision

The Income Tax Department opposed the release, citing an outstanding tax demand of Rs. 88,82,636/- against the petitioner

Section 132-B of the Income Tax Act, which dictates that requisitioned assets must first be applied toward discharging existing liabilities under the Act, with only the remaining balance being refundable

Procedural framework of Criminal Revision under the Cr.P.C., focusing on whether the lower courts committed any illegality or infirmity in their discretionary orders regarding the disposal of property

The Court reasoned that while the petitioner claimed the money was necessary for his business, the statutory rights of the Income Tax Department under a valid requisition warrant superseded the petitioner’s immediate claim for release

The Court noted that the Income Tax Department’s counter-affidavit established a subsisting demand of over Rs. 88 Lakhs, which significantly exceeded the seized amount of Rs. 29.98 Lakhs

Consequently, under Section 132-B, the assets are legally required to be adjusted against these liabilities

The Court further observed that the petitioner’s concern regarding the money lying "unproductive" at the police station could be addressed by moving the trial court to ensure the transfer of funds to the Income Tax Department, where, if eventually found surplus, they could be returned with interest

The acquittal in the criminal trial did not negate the independent tax proceedings or the validity of the requisition

The High Court upheld the lower court's orders and dismissed the revision petition, finding no illegality in the refusal to release the cash to the petitioner

The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the Trial Court to seek the transfer of the seized money to the Income Tax Department to satisfy or adjust against the outstanding demands