Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010054672024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./104/2024 BENU BHUSHAN NATH S/O BHARAT CH. NATH R/O RAJMOHAN BORA PATH, GANESHPARA, P.S. FATASIL AMBARI, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM PIN-781025 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:RAKESH MANTRI PROPRIETOR OF M/S GLOBAL MARKETING SITUATED AT FANCY BAZAR P.O. AND PS. FANCY BAZAR GUWAHATI-01. DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S NATH, MR. N G KUNDU Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 17.06.2026 Heard Mr. S. Nath, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. By this application, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.12.2023 passed by the learned CJM, Kamrup(M) in G.R. Case No. 670/2016 by which the seized cash money worth Rs. 4,83,030/- was rejected to be handed over to the petitioner namely Benu Bhushan Nath. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that a trial was conducted against him for misappropriation of money while he was working as a Salesman in M/S Global Marketing Company situated at Fancy Bazar, Guwahati. The trial ended in acquittal of the petitioner vide judgment and order dated 27.02.2023. By the said judgment, it was held that prosecution had failed to prove its case and the petitioner was acquitted of all of the charges under Section 381/408 of the IPC. It is also the case of the petitioner that during the investigation, a sum of Rs. 4,83,030/- was seized from the house of the petitioner alleging that the said money was misappropriated by the petitioner from respondent no.2. During the proceeding of the case, the said amount of money was given in custody to respondent no.2. It is known to all sundry that any custody/zimma order made during the pendency of the proceeding like giving articles or cash in zimma is an interim arrangement and the said order of custody is always with the rider that the person to whom the custody is given has to make it available before the Trial Court as and when required. It is noticed that although the petitioner was acquitted of the charges by the Trial Court, the money recovered during the Page No.# 3/3 pendency of the proceedings were not dealt finally by the Trial Court. Further in the impugned order dated 19.12.2023, it is seen that the money claimed by the petitioner was not acceded to only on the ground that it was given in zimma to the proprietor of M/S Global Marketing Company. However, the same cannot be the reason for rejection of the claim of the petitioner. 4. As such, this Court deems it fit that order dated 19.12.2023 be quashed with the further direction that the learned CJM, Kamrup(M) would pass a fresh order by taking into account as to whom the money belongs by ordering respondent no.2. to produce the said cash money before the Court. 5. With these observations, the petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant