Rs 15.96 lakh seized from daily labourer: Why Calcutta High Court just quashed case

Theft or not?

• The interesting aspect of the matter is that the petitioner was arrested with the said amount of cash on suspicion that such amount is stolen cash.
• During the investigation, the investigating authority came to learn from the statement of the accused person that the seized amount was delivered to him by his cousin on April 9, 2003, to carry secretly to his father for the construction of a house.
• The cousin, after appearing before the investigating officers, claimed the ownership of the said cash amount and also that the said amount was withdrawn from ICCI Bank along with the necessary papers, and claimed to have a business of jewellery.
• Primarily, there are no ingredients to attract Section 379 IPC (punishment for theft) against the petitioner since the amount cannot be further said to be stolen by the accused.
• Whether the source of the amount has been satisfactorily explained by said cousin cannot have any semblance on the charge levelled against the petitioner under Section 379 IPC.
• No iota of the material exists to attract 379 of the IPC against the present petitioner from whom such an amount was seized.
• Section 411 (Dishonestly receiving stolen property) of the IPC also deals with the offence of dishonestly receiving the stolen property.
• It terms of the relevant provision, the act must involve dishonestly taking, or the item and the property kept must be proven to be stolen.
• The key aspect of Section 411 IPC is that whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished.
• To establish the liability, it must be proven that the property was stolen, the accused owned it, and the accused knew or had reason to believe it was stolen.

Rs 15.96 seizure

• The case originated from an incident on April 9, 2023.
• Acting on a telephonic tip regarding the transport of allegedly stolen cash, Datan police intercepted a blue-colored vehicle entering West Bengal from Odisha.
• While four other occupants fled, police recovered Rs 15.96 lakh from the petitioner and arrested him on the spot.
• Following this, the police registered a case under Section 379, 411, and 34 of the IPC, and on completion of the investigation, submitted the charge sheet, though his cousin claimed to be the owner of the amount recovered from the petitioner.
• The petitioner works as a daily labourer and is an inhabitant of the locality where he resides.
• Advocates Aniket Mitra, Argha Banerjee, and Nanadini Chatterjee, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case.
• They further argued that there is nothing in the FIR that remotely suggests that the petitioner had ever stolen any amount from anyone.
• The stand taken by the petitioner is that his cousin brother, who was a manufacturer of gold and silver jewelry, precious base metal, and semi-precious stones, handed over the said amount to him.
• They submitted that the said cousin of the petitioner decided to construct a house and hence called the petitioner and gave the said amount, withdrawing from the bank for constructing the house.
• Representing the state, advocates Debasish Roy, Anwar Hossain, and Ratna Ghosh raised objections and submitted that no satisfactory reply could be given to the investigating authority by the petitioner regarding possessing such a huge amount of cash.