Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.35 seconds)
Documents citing Krishnan Sukumaran vs Enforcement Officer, Cochin on 14 November, 1967

K. Choyi, Income-Tax Officer, ... vs Syed Abdulla Bafakki Thangal And Anr. on 11 July, 1972

15. Krishnan Sukumaran v. Enforcement Officer, Cochin : In this case one Sukumaran was arrested by the police at 4 a.m. on May 27, 1966, having found him in suspicious circumstances with a filled cloth bag. When he was searched it was found that his cloth bag contained 789 Indian currency notes of one hundred rupee denomination, bundled into several lots and slips of papers attached thereto. Investigation revealed that the amount was entrusted to him by one Kesavan Madhavan, and that the remittance was made from foreign countries through secret agencies to be distributed to persons in India. The police produced accused Sukumaran and the amount seized before the court. The Magistrate remanded Sukumaran to custody. Soon thereafter, the Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, Madras, passed orders under Section 19(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and in pursuance thereof he made an application before the court praying that the documents (currency notes) may be made over to him for the purpose of investigation. It was that order that was challenged in the criminal revision petition which came up for decision before the Division Bench. Isaac J. held in that case as follows:
Kerala High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Assistant Controller Of Customs, New ... vs Kedar Nath on 13 December, 1971

AND submitted that although the first clause of Section 54( I ) may not apply the fourth clause certainly did apply. He invited our attention to a Bench decision of Kerala High Court in Krishnan Sukumaran v. Enforcement Officer Cochin, . That was a case where Indian currency had been seized by a police officer suspecting commission of some offence. The offence alleged in that case was one under Section 19(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. A police officer who was a Sub-Inspector of police was required to assist the Enforcement Officer under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act in the enforcement of that Act. The offences under that Act are non-cognizable offences and are to be investigated by the officers of Enforcement and prosecuted by them. Section 25A of the Act empowers and requires officers of police, among others, to assist officers of Enforcement in the enforcement of the Act. Section 550 Criminal Procedure Code also empowers a police officer to seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence. It was in these circumstances that the Division Bench held that the seizure of the currency notes by the Sub-Inspector from the possession of the petitioner was lawful. In the present case, the seizure of gold is certainly within the purview of Section 550 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But the Station House Officer Kotwali was not assisting any officer of Customs nor is there any case of an officer from the Enforcement Directorate of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act being assisted in the case. S.H.O. Kotwali. certainly had the power to seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen or which may be found under circumstances which created suspicion of a commission of any offence. The seizure of the property was therefore not within S.54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but under Section 550 of the Code and we find from the record that this is precisely what the Station House Officer Kotwali Police Station did. Since the seizure of the property was one under Section 550 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the arrest of the respondent may not come within the purview of the first clause of S. 54(1) of the Code. The question however is whether it does come under the purview of the fourth clause of Section 54(1) ? The authority from Kerala High Court therefore does not go to the length of invoking Section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as it was confined only to the operation of Section 550 of the Code.
Delhi High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Ms Swaran Sabharwal vs Commissioner Of Police on 22 May, 1987

9. Counsel referred to certain judgments to show that a bank account can be treated as "property" within the meeting of the above section : Bhimji Ramji Gujrathi v. Emperor AIR 1944 Nagpur 366, Babulal Agarwalla v. Province of Orissa , Krishnan Sukumaran v. Enforcement officer, Cochin and Dr. Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab (1978-80) PLR 514. he submitted that a perusal of the bank account of the petitioner with respondent No.2 shows that monies had been transferred to her by her husband. According to counsel, police had reason to believe that the fund obtained by the petitioner's husband as a result of the offence with which he is charged have been transferred to the petitioner and deposited in the above- mentioned bank account. He says that, in these circumstances, the seizure of the monies deposited with the bank can be justified by reference to section 102 above-mention.
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 55 - S Ranganathan - Full Document

Bafna Textiles vs Income-Tax Officer, Assessment-4, ... on 10 January, 1974

10. Shri S. R. Rajasekhara Murthy invited my attention to decisions of some other High Courts wherein a contrary view has been taken. He invited my attention to the decision of the Kerala High Court in Krishnan Sukumaran v. Enforcement Officer, Cochin. That was a revision petition under section 139 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It was held in that case that, if a property which an Enforcement officer functioning under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, is entitled to seize or otherwise take possession of under section 19G of the Act is in the custody of a court or any other authority, what that officer has to do under that circumstance is to move the court or the authority for handing over possession of the property for any lawful purpose and it is the duty of the court or the authority to hand it over to the officer if it does not require it for some lawful purpose. That was not a case of construing the provisions of section 132(1) of the Act. All that is laid down is the, if the property is in the possession of the court or any other authority and if such court or authority does not require the possession of the same for any lawful purpose, it should hand over the same to the officer entitled to seize or otherwise take possession under any other provision of law. The question as to whether an authority functioning under one enactment is entitled to seize the property already seized by another authority under another law during the subsistence of such seizure did not arise for consideration in that case. Hence, the said decision has no direct bearing on the question involved in this case.
Karnataka High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Enforcement Officer vs Sub Inspector Of Public And Anr. on 29 January, 1971

Power of search, seizure and arrest has been vested in the Enforcement Officer by the relevant section of the Act, and such power can be exercised by him under any circumstance, when he has reason to believe that a person is expected to have contravened any of the provisions of the Act. In such circumstances, I do not see any material difference in the procedure of the magis- trate in whose custody the money seized is, directing its disbursement to the Enforcement Officer, and the Magistrate returning the money to the accused from whom it was seized, and allowing him to be arrested by the Enforcement Officer in the next moment, and seizing the money from him. It is in this background that in Fakkir Muhammed v. State A.I.R. 1967 Ker 282 and Krishnan Sukumaran v. Enforcement Officer this Court had to observe that It would be an empty formality, in the face of the application moved by the Enforcement Officer, to have the property delivered to the petitioners Under Section 523, Criminal P.C. and then seized by the Enforcement Officer from the hands of the petitioners at the gate of the Magistrate's court.
Kerala High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1