IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2010 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 31382 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. SANTHOSH MARUTI BABAR, S/O.MARUTI, AGED 26 YEARS, RESIDING AT NAYAN COMPLEX, NUT STREET, VATAKARA. 2. SUNIL ANAND JADHAV, S/O.JADHAV, AGED 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT S.A.NIVAS, SOUTH BAZAR, MAIN ROAD, PAYYANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RAILWAY POLICE STATION, KANNUR. 2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT, WAFA BHAVAN, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI.K. RAMESH. R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 31382 of 2009(P) APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: NIL RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R5(A) : TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.ADIT(INV.)/CLT/ED/2008-09 DATED 07.12.09 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(INV), CALICUT. /TRUE COPY/ PS TO JUDGE T.R.Ramachandran Nair, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.31382 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioners are jewelers in gold, silver, etc. The first petitioner is the owner of Sidharth Gold Works, Payyannur and the second petitioner is also engaged in the business of refining gold and silver at Payyannur. On 4.2.2009 the first respondent had seized an amount of Rs.6,09,500/- from the first petitioner. It is averred in the writ petition that the first respondent conducted an investigation and found that no offence with respect to the money seized was committed and accordingly the first respondent reported the matter to the second respondent. Thereafter the second respondent started an enquiry and statements of the petitioners were recorded. Petitioners have stated in detail the circumstances leading to the same. 2. What is averred in the writ petition is that in the report made by the second respondent to the third respondent, it is W.P.(C) No.31382 of 2009 - 2 - stated that the seizure of the money does not involve violation of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) or any other offence. It is also stated that there was a further recommendation for release of the said money. 3. The second and third respondents have filed a counter affidavit. It is revealed from paragraph 3 of the said counter affidavit that the seized currency and case records were transferred to the second respondent by the first respondent on 4.2.2009 for conducting investigations under the provisions of FEMA. Thereafter the investigations were conducted by the second respondent. The investigation revealed that the first petitioner sold 132 grams of gold jewelery belonging to his wife and 352 grams of old gold jewelery which was given to him by the second petitioner and these gold jeweleries were sold to one Vikas Seth at Thalassery on 3.2.2009. Enquiries with said Vikas Seth confirmed that the first petitioner had sold old jewelery on 3.2.2009. The matter was also referred to the Income Tax Department. Ext.R3(A) is the letter W.P.(C) No.31382 of 2009 - 3 - issued by the concerned department in the matter. It is further pointed out that since the Income Tax Department had requested to hold the amount with the second respondent, the third respondent is not in a position to release the seized amount to the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the third respondent may be directed to pass final orders in the matter. Learned Assistant Solicitor General submits that they cannot release the amount without getting clearance from the Income Tax Department. Appropriate orders in this regard will be passed by the third respondent within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and the decision shall be communicated to the petitioner. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. T.R.Ramachandran Nair, Judge vns