JAIN V K Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 744 and 745 of 1971 also. Briefly stated the facts are that on April 24, 1971, at about 8.45 a.m. three raiding parties, consisting of income -tax officials, conducted a raid on the residential -cum - office premises of the petitioner (No. 5P/37 -C, Faridabad, NIT) and two other places at Faridabad later in the day. It is needless to set out all the facts pertaining to the said raid and searches.

(2.) NOT all the contentions put forward concerning them in this and the connected writ petitions are available to the petitioner in view of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Pooran Mal vs. Director of Inspection (Investigation) (1974) 93 ITR 505, 510 (SC). CTR In that case S. 132 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter called "the Act"), and r. 112 of the IT Rules, 1962 (hereinafter called "the Rules"), under which these raids, etc., were made, were attacked as being unconstitutional. The Supreme Court repelled the said attack on the ground that S. 132 of the Act as well as r. 112 of the Rules have provided adequate safeguards against abuse and were hence valid. The power to order search and seizure was vested in the highest officers of the Department ; the exercise of the power can only follow a reasonable belief entertained by such officer that any of the three conditions mentioned in S. 132(1)(a), (b) and (c) existed ; the Director of Inspection or the CIT, as the case may be, has to record his reasons before the authorisation is issued to the officers mentioned in sub -s. (1) who could not be officers below the rank of an ITO ; the authorisation has to be for specific purposes enumerated in (i) to (v) in sub -s. (1), all of which are strictly limited to the object of the search. The person in charge of the premises searched is immediately given a copy of the list of articles seized, and a copy of the same is to be forwarded to the authorising officer. The same procedure which applies to searches and seizures under the CrPC applies basically to these searches and seizures also. In these circumstances the Supreme Court held that the safeguards are adequate to render the provisions of search and seizure as less onerous and restrictive as possible ; the argument that S. 132 of the Act and r. 112 of the Rules were violative of Arts. 19(1) (f) and (g) of the Constitution were repelled.

(3.) FIRSTLY , he contended that as a matter of construing cls. (a) and (b) of S. 132(1) of the Act the officials of the IT Department should have given to the petitioner a notice to produce whatever account books or other documents are needed and only after the petitioner fails to comply with the same there should have been a raid for the purpose of seizing them. To appreciate this contention, cls. (a) and (b) of S. 132(1) of the Act may be read :