ECI accepts before Patna HC that money seized from garment shop was not for election misuse

PATNA: The Election Commission of India (ECI) submitted counter affidavit before the Patna high court on Wednesday accepting that the amount of Rs 26.9 lakh seized from a wholesale garment shop located at Zila parishad market in Muzaffarpur on March 26 was not for election misuse. Following it, the high court said it will pronounce judgement on the matter on Thursday.
A flying squad of the ECI had seized the money from the shop on basis of information through sources that it was meant for misuse in election. M/s Indian Traders later moved high court alleging that the money was seized for violating ECI regulations and had urged court to direct concerned officials for releasing it.
On Wednesday, the matter had turned up for hearing before bench of Justice Jyoti Saran and Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan. ECI, in their affidavit, apprised court that its three-member committee headed by deputy development commissioner (DDC) had ordered release of money on May 13, complying high court’s order.
The court during hearing on May 10, terming the matter as a larger issue, had directed the ECI to take call weather to release the money or not within 48 hours timeframe. Simultaneously, it had also directed ECI to file a counter affidavit replying that under which provision of its rules and regulations, the money got seized. Counsel Siddhartha Prasad had appeared for ECI while Gautam Kejriwal had appeared for the petitioner.
However, the court came to know that Income-Tax (IT) department has the possession of money, after being handed over by ECI and the three-member committee had said that the last step of releasing money now could be done by the IT department.
However counsel Archana Sinha, representing IT department, submitted that the legitimacy of the money was being investigated under IT Act.
This infuriated the court which then chided the department that it was not their individual action but was of ECI. Sinha even pleaded for time to submit a supplementary affidavit on the matter but the court did not pay heed to it and reserved its judgement.