Skip to content


Mohamed Thaha Vs. First Income-tax Officer and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1967CriLJ1422
AppellantMohamed Thaha
RespondentFirst Income-tax Officer and anr.
Excerpt:
- .....j.1. petitioner, mohamed thaha, was taken into custody by the sub-inspector of police railway police, mayuram, on 22nd july 1964, as he was in possession of currency notes of one hundred rupee denomination to the tune of bs. 1,70,000 and he could not satisfactorily account for the same. the said currency notes were sent to the court of the sub-magistrate, mayuram. after investigation by the c. i. d., crime branch, madras, further action was dropped by the police and petitioner, mohamed thaha, was released.2. the case of the petitioner is that the amount was entrusted to him by his employer mohamed ibrahim. on 10th november 1964, mohamed thaha and mohamed ibrahim filed a joint petition c. m. p. no. 433 of 1964 before the sub-magistrate, mayuram, for the return of the said sum to.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Sadasivam, J.

1. Petitioner, Mohamed Thaha, was taken into custody by the Sub-Inspector of Police Railway Police, Mayuram, on 22nd July 1964, as he was in possession of currency notes of one hundred rupee denomination to the tune of BS. 1,70,000 and he could not satisfactorily account for the same. The said currency notes were sent to the Court of the Sub-Magistrate, Mayuram. After investigation by the C. I. D., Crime Branch, Madras, further action was dropped by the police and petitioner, Mohamed Thaha, was released.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the amount was entrusted to him by his employer Mohamed Ibrahim. On 10th November 1964, Mohamed Thaha and Mohamed Ibrahim filed a joint petition C. M. P. No. 433 of 1964 before the Sub-Magistrate, Mayuram, for the return of the said sum to Mohamed Ibrahim in view of the fact that further action had been dropped by the Railway police. The first Income-tax Officer, Nagapattinam, filed a petition before the Sub. Magistrate, Mayuram, praying that the amount in deposit claimed by Moharned Ibrahim, may be ordered to be handed over to the Income-tax Department towards the income tax assessment on Mohamed Ibrahim for the year 1964-65. On 21st November 1964, Mohamed Ibrahim filed a memo before the Sub-Magistrate, Mayuram, agreeing to the withdrawal of Rs. 1,70,000 from the Court by the Income-tax Officer without prejudice to the rights of the partners of Yakoobia Traders Company. In dealing with a transfer application filed by the petitioner, the Sessions Judge. East Tanjore Division, directed the Sub-Magistrate to act on the memo filed by Mohamed Ibrahim and to comply with the demand of the Income-tax Officer. Accordingly the Sub-Magistrate, Mayuram, has directed the gum of Rs. 1,70,000 lying in court deposit to be transferred to the account of the Income-tax Department in accordance with the provisions of Section 226 (4j of the Income tax Act.

3. The first petition, Crl. M. P. No. 465 of 1965, has been filed for the return of the sum of Rs. 1,70 000 to the petitioner. The second petition Crl. M. P. 466 of 1965 has been filed to direct the Sub-Magistrate, Mayuram, to retain in court custody the sum of Rs. 1,70,000. The last petition Crl. M. P. No. 771 of 1965 has been filed to direct the Sub-Magistrate Mayuram, to get back the sum of Rs. 1,70,000 from the Income-tax Department. I have already pointed out that the petitioner has admitted that the sum of Rs. 1,70,000 belonged to Mohamed Ibrahim and, in fact, he filed a petition for the amount being paid over to the said Mohamed Ibrahim. The said Mohamed Ibrahim has consented to the amount being transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Nagapattinam. Even without his consent, the lower Court was entitled to comply with the demand of the Income-tax Officer under Section 226 (4) of the Income-tax Act. There is no ground to interfere with the order of the Sub-Magistrate regarding the disposal of the amount by giving any of the directions sought for by the petitioner. The above criminal miscellaneous petitions are therefore dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //