KAMAL KHOSLA Vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length. The prayers in the petition are : (a) that the search and seizure proceedings initiated under S. 132 of the Act may be declared as illegal and invalid; (b) that the entire seized material including the cash of Rs. 1,40,000 may be ordered to be released forthwith; (c) that the cash amounting to Rs. 2,80,000 extorted by the search party may be ordered to be returned to the petitioner forthwith; (d) that the restraint order under S. 132 (3) in respect of the premises at 605, Hemkunt Tower, 6, Rajender Place, New Delhi may be directed to be withdrawn by the respondents forthwith and the seals be removed to enable the petitioners to resume their business; (e) that due cost and compensation may be suitably awarded to the petitioners for all the harassment and hardships caused to them by the respondents; and (f) that any other order or direction may be passed in favour of the petitioners as it may deem fit and proper.

(2.) HOWEVER , in the course of arguments Mr. Bajpai additionally prayed, that the petitioner be permitted to amend the petition in order to implead the CBI and that directions be issued to the CBI to complete their investigation expeditiously. We find no justification in enlarging the scope of the present petition and virtually monitoring the activities of the CBI. This is additionally so for the reason that no allegations against the CBI have been articulated in the petition. The impression that we have gathered from the submissions made by Mr. Bajpai is that the CBI is proceeding in the matter with diligence and despatch, in fact it appears that an FIR has already been registered on 14th May, 2000, against Shri Rajesh Sharma and Shri Gupta both of whom are the Inspectors in the IT Department involved in the subject search. Prayer (c) mentioned above, as also the prayers additionally made before us in the course of arguments, are palpably precipitate, and are rejected as such. The CBI must be left to investigate the complaint unhindered by this Court.

(3.) MR . Bajpai contended that the Inspectors had acted in an illegal manner in demanding the said sum of Rs. 2,80,000. Without in anyway reflecting upon the merits of this accusation, even though transcripts of some tape recorded conversation have been produced. These events even if they are assumed to be correct, would not directly affect the legal propriety of the search and seizure under s. 132 of the IT Act. The latter proceedings would not be invalidated because of a subsequent illegal action. As we see it, the allegations pertaining to the alleged bribe of Rs. 2.80 lakhs have been impressed upon us in an effort to prejudice the search and seizure carried out by the respondents.