2026:JHHC:18514 Cr. Revision No. 649 of 2021 Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 649 of 2021 …… Arun Kumar Dubey, aged about 51 years, Son of Udai Dubey, Resident of Village-Banpurwa, P.O., P.S. & Dist. Garhwa, Jharkhand … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Income Tax Department, through Assistant Director of Income Tax, Ranchi, near Club Complex, M.G. Road, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S.-Lower Bazar, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand … Opp. Parties …… For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Adv. For the State : Mrs. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, Sr. S.C. Ms. Saudamini Gupta, Jr. S.C. Mr. Durgesh Agarwal, A.C. to Sr. S.C. …… P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA …… ORDER C.A.V. on 12.06.2026 Pronounced on 24.06.2026 1. Instant criminal revision is directed against the order dated 14.07.2020 passed by Learned S.D.J.M., Palamau in G.R. Case No. 72 of 2020 arising out of Chainpur P.S. Case No. 297 of 2019, whereby and whereunder, an amount of Rs. 29.98 Lakhs seized from the petitioner has been declined to be released in his favour, against which, the petitioner also preferred a Criminal Revision No. 18 of 2020 before the 2026:JHHC:18514 Cr. Revision No. 649 of 2021 Page | 2 learned Addl. Sessions Judge-VIII, Palamau at Daltonganj, which was also dismissed vide order dated 19.02.2021. 2. I have already heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P as well as learned counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused Kedar Prajapati, Murari Yadav and Sukuldeo Prajapati were apprehended with cash of Rs. 29.98 Lakhs near Chainpur Police Station, in course of checking, on account of Assembly Elections. The money was seized and they were apprehended. Accordingly, Chainpur P.S. Case No. 297 of 2019 was registered, for the offence under Sections 414, 505(1)(b), 171-E, 171-F, 171-H, 188, 120B of the IPC against Kedar Prajapati, Murari Yadav, Sukuldev Prajapati and unknown B.J.P. Candidates. It is further alleged that on 22.11.2019, P.D.I.T. issued a requisition warrant requisitioning seized cash from the police. Thereafter, petitioner namely Arun Kumar Dubey filed an application for release of the seized cash on 03.12.2019, which was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. vide order dated 14.07.2020. Thereafter, a criminal revision was filed before the Learned Addl. Sessions Judge bearing Cr. Rev. No. 18 of 2020, which was also dismissed 2026:JHHC:18514 Cr. Revision No. 649 of 2021 Page | 3 vide order dated 19.02.2021. The petitioner again filed an application for release of the seized cash before learned S.D.J.M., Palamau, which was rejected vide order dated 21.09.2021. The petitioner has challenged the said order before this Hon’ble Court by filing Cr. Rev. No. 649 of 2021. It is further submitted that during pendency of this criminal revision, the accused persons have been acquitted after facing trial, in connection with Chainpur P.S. Case No. 297 of 2019 vide judgment dated 27.08.2024. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court has not taken into consideration that petitioner is a contractor and withholding of his huge amount will hamper his business and passed the order in mechanical manner. Therefore, this revision petition may be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of O.P. No. -2 (Income Tax Dept.) have opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for release of the amount seized in this case in view of the requisition issued by the Income Tax Department-opposite party No. 2. It is further submitted that the opposite party No. 2-Income Tax Department has filed counter-affidavit on 2026:JHHC:18514 Cr. Revision No. 649 of 2021 Page | 4 11.06.2025 stating inter alia that there are outstanding demand of Rs. 88,82,636/- recoverable from the petitioner and that the requisitioned cash was never handed over to the Income Tax Department by the police and the same cannot be released to the petitioner, rather, be handed over to the Income Tax Department. It is submitted that as per provision of Section 132-B, the requisitioned assets are to be used first to discharge the existing liability under the Income Tax Act and the remaining property, if any, can only be released. In the instant case, the existing liability exceeds than the requisitioned assets of the petitioner, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order, calling for any interference and this revision is fit to be dismissed. 5. I have gone through the impugned order in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both side. 6. It appears that the main grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of requisition made by the Income Tax Department about the seized currency notes, it is still lying at the police station. Therefore, the seized assets are lying as unproductive assets without any interest to be paid. As per the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, if the seized currency notes are returned to the Income Tax 2026:JHHC:18514 Cr. Revision No. 649 of 2021 Page | 5 Department, then, also after satisfying the outstanding demand, if any, balance amount remains to be paid, will be returned with interest to the petitioner. Therefore, in spite of acquittal of the accused persons from the charges, the petitioner is deprived of the benefit of his money. 7. In view of aforesaid discussions and considering the relevant provisions of Income Tax Act, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order calling for any interference in this revision, which is hereby upheld. However, petitioner shall be, at liberty, to agitate his grievance about the requisition of the seized money to the Income Tax Department, as prayed for, before the concerned trial Court. 8. Accordingly, this criminal revision is disposed of. 9. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. 10. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 24/06/2026 Basant / NAFR Uploaded On: 25/06/2026