Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2021 · Manipur High Court

B E F O R E HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR

O R D E R 04-05-2022 Sanjay Kumar (C.J.), [1] The appellant is the owner of Maa Durga Store, a shop at Hazi Park, Dimapur, Nagaland. On 03-01-2019, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) seized a sum of ₹. 62,00,000/- from his shop. Thereupon, NIA Case No. RC-05/2018/NIA-GUW was registered under Sections 121, 121A, 400 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. His representation for release of the amount was rejected on 22-02-2019. Aggrieved, he filed Cril. Misc. Appeal No. 1 of 2019 before the learned Special Judge, NIA, Manipur. [2] By judgment and order dated 19-08-2019, the Special Court allowed the appeal, holding that the order dated 22-02-2019 was without jurisdiction and set it aside. The appellant was given liberty to move Crl.A. No. 18 of 2021 independent proceedings for granting Zima of the seized money in his favour under the relevant provisions. [3] The appellant thereupon filed Cril.

Misc. Zima No. 14 of 2019 before the Special Court. This application was filed with the prayer that interim custody of the seized amount of ₹. 9,45,000/- be given to him under Section 451 Cr.PC. According to him, this was the amount that belonged to him out of the total seized amount of ₹. 62,00,000/-. It was his claim that the balance amount was given to him by twenty-one named persons for business purposes. By order dated 24-10-2019, the Special Court held that the appellant was entitled to get the claimed amount of ₹. 9,45,000/- on Zima and directed its release in his favour on executing a Zima bond for ₹. 10,00,000/- with one surety for a like sum from a State Government employee of the rank of a Gazetted Officer. It is an admitted fact that the appellant could not secure such a surety and, therefore, could not avail the benefit of this order till date. [4] While so, it appears that the Directorate of Enforcement registered a separate FIR, being No.

T-3/04/GWZO/2020/FEMA dated 26-08-2020, under the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA Act). The Directorate of Enforcement then filed Cril. Misc. Case No. 22 of 2021 [Ref: Special Trial Court (NIA) Case No. 1 of 2021 (RC- 05/2018/NIA/GUW)] under Section 37 of the FEMA Act read with Section 451 CrPC seeking custody of the full amount of ₹. 62,00,000/- seized by the NIA. By order dated 27-08-2021, the Special Court allowed the application and directed that the custody of the seized amount of ₹. 62,00,000/- be given to the Directorate of Enforcement on its furnishing an undertaking that the said amount would be produced before the Court as and when directed and that no order would be passed regarding the seized amount without the concurrence of the Court. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant filed the present appeal under Section 21 of the NIA Act, 2008. [5] Heard Mr. H. Kenajit, learned counsel for the appellant; Mr.

N. Brojendro, learned counsel for respondent No. 1; Mr. Y. Paikhomba, learned Crl.A. No. 18 of 2021 counsel for respondent No. 2; and Mr. Kh. Tomba, learned counsel for respondent No. 3. [6] Mr. H. Kenajit, learned counsel, would contend that, as the order dated 24-10-2019 in Cril. Misc. Zima No. 14 of 2019 attained finality, it was not open to the Special Court to review the said order and permit the Directorate of Enforcement to have the custody of the total seized amount, including the sum of ₹. 9,45,000/- that was to be released to the appellant. [7] However, perusal of the order under appeal reflects that the Special Court was mindful of the order dated 24-10-2019 and noted that, despite the same, the appellant had not turned up to claim the amount. The Special Court did not make any observations thereafter with regard to the said order and merely directed that the custody of the total seized amount, which was lying in a locker in the State Bank of India, Thangal Bazar, to be handed over to the Directorate of Enforcement.

Therefore, this Court does not find that the Special Court exceeded its jurisdiction or committed an error by reviewing the earlier order dated 24-10-2019. [8] However, as the order dated 24-10-2019 has attained finality and the Directorate of Enforcement, which came into the picture long thereafter, has not taken steps even as on date to assail the said order, the same would have to be given effect to as and when the appellant comes forward to satisfy the conditions prescribed therein. Making this position clear, this criminal appeal is dismissed. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Victoria NINGOM BAM VICTORIA VICTORIA 10:37:02 +05'30' Crl.A. No. 18 of 2021