moot problem help
sandip
(Querist) 17 February 2011
This query is : Open
ON january 1, 2005 one ramesh while he was travelling from bangalore to pune by chennamma express was detained at belgaum railway station by the railway police and a suitcase containing a sum of rs. 5,00,000/- was seized from him on the suspicion case under section 411 ipc read with sections 41 and 102 of the cr.p.c was registered against him.
Mean while intimation about the seizure of money was sent to the incomce tax authorities at belgaum on 2nd january 2005. On 4th january 2005, the income tax inspector belgaum sent an information to the commissioner, income tax department, belgaum about the fact of possession of aforesaid amount by ramesh and also that he did not have any papers and document regarding the ownership and possession of the amount. the commissioner issued a warrant of authorization under section 132a of the income tax act, 1961 on the basis of which the income tax officer sent a letter of requisition to the station officer incharge, railway police belgaum requiring the station house officer to hand over the seized sum of money to him(incom tax officer) who had been aouthrized by warrant of authorization to receive it.
mean while the railway police after completing the investigation submitted the final report on 15th january, 2005 wherein it was stated that the money found in the possession of ramesh did not represent stolen property or property acquired from any offence.
Ramesh moved an application before the railway magistrate, belgaum praying that the money which had been recovered from his possession, be returned to him as it was not required for the purpose of any enquiry or trial. he further relied upon the fact that the railway police had given a final report in his favour.
In these facts and circumstances, argue on the application filed by shri ramesh on behalf of the applicatn as well as on behafl of the income tax department.
sir i need issues, facts arguement of both side with a format of moot memorial.
