Case Law Details
RELEVANT PARAGRAPH
10. We are in agreement with the submissions of the learned Solicitor General. When the bonafides of a passenger carrying an unusually large sum, and his claims regarding the source and legitimacy, have to be verified, some delay and inconvenience is inevitable. The inspecting and investigating officers have to make sure that the money was / intended for any illegal purpose. In such a situation, the rights of the passenger will have to yield to public interest. Any bonafide measures, taken in public interest, and to provide public safety or to prevent circulation of black money, cannot be objected as interference with the personal liberty or freedom of a citizen. We are satisfied that the actions of the officers of the investigation wing in detaining the appellant for questioning and verification, and seizing the cash carried by him, were bonafide and in the course of discharge of their official duties and did not furnish a cause of action for claiming any compensation. The nation is facing terrorist threats. Transportation of large sums of money is associated with distribution of funds for terrorist activities, illegal pay offs etc. There is also rampant circulation of unaccounted black money destroying the economy of the country. In this background if the officers wanted to fully satisfy themselves that the funds were not intended for any illegal purposes, such action cannot be termed as highhanded or unreasonable.
11. The appellant contended that when he had demonstrated that the money carried by him was drawn from his bank and formed part of his legitimate earnings, and when there was no legal prohibition in law for carrying such money, there was no justification for detaining him for 15 hours or for seizing the money that was carried by him. He contended that the purpose for which he was carrying the money was not relevant at that stage as he could use the money for any purpose; that if he used the money for any illegal purpose, he could always be prosecuted; and that therefore, seizure of money legally held and carried, merely on baseless suspicions* was not warranted. The appellant is looking at the issue from the narrow angle of the right of a citizen to carry money which is duly accounted for. from a disclosed source. It, is no doubt true that a person has the right to carry money, whether his own or under authority of the person owning it, in the absence of any prohibition. But the purpose for which the money is carried is also important from the point of view of intelligence gatherers. Money which is drawn from a Bank and. legitimately belonging to ‘ the carrier, may still be used for an illegal purpose, -say to pay for a crime or to fund an act of terrorism. It may also be used for a routine illegal function- to make part payment of sale consideration for a property in cash, so that the full price is not reflected in the sale deed, resulting in evasion of stamp duty and registration charges and evasion of payment of capital gains and creation of black money. The carrying of such a huge sum, itself gives rise to a legitimate suspicion. The intelligence officers are therefore entitled to satisfy themselves, not only that the money is from a legitimate source, but also satisfy themselves that such a large amount is being carried for a legitimate purpose. That is necessary in the interest of preventing crimes and offences. Therefore, even if the carrier is not guilty of any offence in carrying the money, the verification or seizure may be warranted to ensure that the money is not intended for commission of a crime or offence.
12. It is not only the security/ intelligence personnel who require to be sensitised, but also the air. travelling. public some of whom throw tantrums and create scenes at public some of whom throw tantrums and creates scenes at Airports, even for minimum delays and checking procedures, when security protocols are in place, certain hardship and inconvenience is inevitable, and should be accepted with grace, patience, and discipline. Many a traveller forgets that the vigilance and checks are meant for their own interest.
13. But the appellant’s grievance in regard to media being informed about the incident even before completion of investigation, is justified. There is a growing tendency among investigating officers (either police or other departments) to inform the media, even before the completion of investigation, that they have caught a criminal or an offender. Such crude attempts to claim credit for imaginary investigational breakthroughs should be curbed. Even where a suspect surrenders or a person required for questioning voluntarily appears, it is not uncommon for the Investigating Officers to represent to the media that the person was arrested with much effort after considerable investigation or a chase. Similarly, when someone voluntarily declares the money he is carrying, media is informed that huge cash which was not declared was discovered by their vigilant investigations and thorough checking. Premature disclosures or ‘leakage’ to the media in a pending investigation will not only jeopardise, and impede further investigation, but many a time, allow the real culprit to escape from law. Be that as it may.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
