Introduction:

In the case of Lakshman Srinivasan v. Republic of India (CBI), CRLREV No. 660 of 2024, the Orissa High Court addressed the issue of releasing seized currency notes to the accused pending trial. Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra presided over the matter, which involved the seizure of ₹15 lakh from the petitioner, alleged to be involved in fraudulent investment schemes through M/s Infinity Realcon Ltd. The petitioner sought interim custody of the seized cash under Sections 451 and 457 of the Crpc, which was initially denied by the Special Judge (CBI). The High Court’s deliberation centred on whether such currency could be released to the accused without compromising the integrity of the ongoing investigation.

Arguments:

Petitioner’s Arguments:

Advocate Debashis Sinha, representing the petitioner, contended that under Sections 451 and 457 of the Crpc, the court has the authority to release seized property, including currency, to its rightful owner during the pendency of the trial. He cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002), emphasising that seized property should not remain in custody unnecessarily. Additionally, he referred to the Delhi High Court’s ruling in Manjit Singh v. State (2014), which allowed for the release of seized currency notes to the lawful claimant after proper documentation, including a detailed panchnama and photographs, and obtaining a security bond.

Respondent’s Arguments:

Special Public Prosecutor Sarthak Nayak opposed the petition, arguing that the seized amount was not properly accounted for by the petitioner, and the source of the cash was unclear. He maintained that the judgments cited by the petitioner were applicable only when the claimant could lawfully establish entitlement to the seized currency. The trial court had noted the lack of clarity regarding the origin of the funds, thereby justifying the retention of the cash in custody.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra acknowledged the concerns raised by the prosecution but emphasised the importance of ensuring that seized currency does not remain stagnant in judicial custody when it can be preserved through alternative means without prejudicing the prosecution’s case. The court observed that money, as a movable property, should contribute to the economy rather than remain unutilized. To balance the interests of justice and economic utility, the court proposed the following safeguards for releasing the seized currency:

• Preparation of a Detailed Panchnama: A formal record documenting the total amount, denominations, serial numbers (where feasible), and other relevant particulars, supervised by the trial court.
• Preservation of Colour Photographs: High-resolution colour photographs of the seized currency to be taken and signed by the investigating officer, the accused, and two independent witnesses, ensuring evidentiary value.
• Security for the Released Amount: The petitioner must furnish a bank guarantee equivalent to 50% of the seized amount (₹7.5 lakh) and secure the remaining 50% through indemnification of immovable property or other financial security, as deemed satisfactory by the trial court.
• Undertaking of Compliance: Submission of an affidavit by the petitioner affirming that the released amount will remain available for restitution if required by the court, with acknowledgement of legal consequences for any misuse.

The court further emphasized that similar procedures could be adopted by trial courts in analogous cases, ensuring that seized currency remains in circulation, thereby aiding the national economy.