NEW DELHI: In the ongoing general election, cash worth of Rs 812 crore has so far been seized and the total seizure of cash, liquor, drugs and precious metals has already crossed Rs 3,370 crore but it is most likely that the cash will be handed back to people after a month. The Centre on Friday told the Supreme Court that almost entire cash seized during last general election was refunded.In an affidavit filed in the SC which sought information on seizure of unaccounted cash during 2014 general elections and status of criminal cases lodged, the Centre told the court that cumulative seizure of Rs 303.86 crore was done in 2014 but said the money was released after conducting assessment of income of the person from whom the money was seized. It added that people were booked only in three out of hundreds of cases. “So you are saying that money was released after election and you kept their money in your safe custody for one month,” a bench of Justices N V Ramana and M M Shantanagouder said expressing shock over the revelation.Expressing concern over use of money to bribe voters and alleged failure of law enforcement agencies in bringing the culprits to book, the court had directed the Centre to furnish details regarding seizure of unaccounted cash and status of all criminal cases lodged pertaining to election offence. Senior advocate R Balasubramanian, appearing for the Centre, told the court that no information was available regarding the criminal cases as they are being pursued by state governments.“The question is that huge amount of cash and material is seized during the election and is it not the duty of Centre to pursue the cases in co-ordination with states and Election Commission. You are presuming that the cash seized has nothing to do with election. It seems you know nothing and we should give responsibility to the Commission. We will ask the Commission to take over the power of CBDT (Central Board of Direct Taxes) to conduct raids and pursue the case. Let EC supervise your department during elections,” the bench said.The EC and Centre were seen to be at loggerheads during proceedings with poll panel telling the court that Centre was not cooperating with it and did not provide information on raids conducted by the I-T department. Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi and lawyer Amit Sharma told the court that EC had written to the finance ministry to keep it in the loop on conducting raids but it got no response.“You do not do anything after conducting raid and seizure of cash. You do not cooperate with the commission and you also do not cooperate with court. You are not sincere and have not responded to EC’s letter. Is this the way the government should respond,” the court said. It said that court will frame guidelines to ensure that cases lodged during elections are properly monitored and brought to logical conclusion. The Centre in its affidavit said, “All search and seizure operations carried out during elections are as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The department does not differentiate between election related and non-election related operations. Therefore, apart from the data provided by ECI, no separate data was centrally maintained in the CBDT regarding search and seizure operations conducted and cash seizures made during elections. No separate prosecution data for a particular class of assesses was centrally maintained in the CBDT”.The court was hearing a plea of Karnataka government challenging a HC order of quashing a criminal case against a person from whose possession over Rs 20 lakh was recovered during 2014 Lok Sabha by-election in Bellary constituency. The flying squad of EC had raided the residence and business complex of one Prathik Parasrampuria after getting an anonymous message alleging that the he had hoarded a large amount of currency which was to be used for bribing the voters and an FIR was lodged against him. The accused moved HC which had in February 2015 quashed the FIR saying there was no averment in the complaint as to whom the accused intended to bribe and the mode which he had planned to adopt. The state government thereafter moved SC challenging HC decision.