A court here has refused to direct the Delhi Police to return to a businessman ₹12 lakh in ₹2,000 currency notes seized just after the 2016 demonetisation.
The police had recovered the money in a bag under a car, where it was allegedly hidden by the businessman’s helper after the amount was stolen from his shop.
When the businessman, operating out of Gandhi Nagar in east Delhi, approached the police for release of the seized money, they refused due to the denomination of the currency notes.
The businessman then approached a Metropolitan Magistrate court seeking release of the money but his plea was dismissed.
Revision petition
Thereafter, he filed a revision petition against the Magistrate court order in the court of Additional Sessions Judge Ajay Gupta. He argued that he had collected the money in cash from his customers in denomination of ₹2,000 notes as it was easily available at that time.
Rebutting his argument, the judge said, “The revisionist has not placed any record of daily cash collection by which it can be inferred that on January 12, 2017, [when the police seized the money], the applicant had collected ₹12 lakh from his customers.”
“In his application moved before the ACP, Gandhi Nagar, the revisionist stated that he had arranged an amount of ₹12 lakh from his bank and other sources. But the report filed by Income Tax Officer reveals that no withdrawal had been made by the revisionist from the bank during the above period. Further, the Income Tax Officer reported that sale made in the month of December 2016 was ₹9,70,705, whereas sale in the previous and preceding months was very low,” the judge said.
“Demonetisation came into effect during November [2016]. It is beyond understanding as to how the sale of the revisionist increased during the demonetisation period. The details of other sources has also not been provided,’’ Mr. Gupta added.
‘No explanation’
“As far as the submission that currency notes of ₹2,000 were easily available in the market is concerned, sale in the market was not that sound during that period. Withdrawal of such a huge amount was not possible during those days. The revisionist has shown his sale in odd amounts. There is no explanation as to how the revisionist was in possession of only ₹2,000 currency notes while the sale was also in odd amounts. Thus, the submission by the counsel for the revisionist is not well-founded,” the judge said, dismissing the revision petition.
