Calcutta High Court Quashes Theft Case Against Labourer After Rs 15.96 Lakh Seizure
The Calcutta High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a daily-wage labourer from whom Rs 15.96 lakh in cash was seized by police on suspicion of it being stolen property. Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das, while hearing the plea, emphasized that for a theft charge under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to be maintainable, the essential criterion is taking movable property from someone's possession without consent.
Court's Rationale and Legal Analysis
In its order dated February 4, the court noted that the charge of stealing the amount could not be substantiated because the ownership of the cash was specifically claimed by another person who has also been arraigned as an accused. The order stated, "The prima facie case in favour of the petitioner cannot be said to be well constituted, since by no stretch of imagination can it be said that the cash amount was stolen by the petitioner or that he received any stolen amount dishonestly."
Justice Das highlighted that there are no ingredients to attract Section 379 IPC against the petitioner, as the amount cannot be further said to be stolen by the accused. The court also addressed Section 411 IPC, which deals with dishonestly receiving stolen property, noting that to establish 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—none of which were satisfied in this case.
Background of the Case and Investigation Details
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, police registered a case under Sections 379, 411, and 34 of the IPC.
During the investigation, it was revealed that the petitioner claimed 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 The cousin, after appearing before investigating officers, claimed ownership of the cash, stating it was withdrawn from ICCI Bank along with necessary papers and that he had a jewellery business. Despite this, police delayed sharing the seizure information with the income tax department for nearly five months after the April 10, 2023 seizure.
Arguments Presented by Both Sides
Advocates Aniket Mitra, Argha Banerjee, and Nanadini Chatterjee, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that he is totally innocent and falsely implicated. They argued that nothing in the FIR suggests the petitioner ever stole any amount, and the cash was handed over by his cousin, a manufacturer of gold and silver jewelry, for house construction purposes.
Representing the state, advocates Debasish Roy, Anwar Hossain, and Ratna Ghosh objected, submitting that no satisfactory reply could be given by the petitioner regarding possessing such a huge amount of cash. However, the court found their arguments insufficient to sustain the charges.
Key Legal Implications and Conclusion
This ruling underscores the importance of establishing clear evidence for theft charges under IPC. The court's decision highlights that mere possession of a large sum does not automatically imply theft, especially when ownership is contested and claimed by another party. The quashing of the case serves as a reminder of judicial scrutiny in criminal proceedings, ensuring that charges are based on substantive legal grounds rather than suspicion alone.
