SRINIVASAN Vs. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON September 3, 1971, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore City, claiming to have received credible information that Srinivasan and Sampath Kumar, the revision petitioners, were habitually dealing in stolen properties in the form of gold jewels of high value concerned in several burglaries and thefts committed in Coimbatore and its suburbs, went to the house of the petitioners at No. 523, Big Bazaar Street, Coimbatore, and made a search between 6 p.m. and 10 p.m., after sending intimation to the Town Sub-Magistrate, Coimbatore. During the search, 52 items of jewellery, a foreign transistor, a khaki cloth bag and Rs. 39,880 in cash were recovered from the house of the petitioners. The petitioners were arrested and produced before the City Sub-Magistrate, Coimbatore, along with the seized articles. ON September 8, 1971, they were released on bail. Subsequently, on September 13, 1971, the detective inspector, Madras, went to Coimbatore, and arrested the petitioners and produced them before the Deputy Commissioner, Crimes, Madras, as he suspected them of having committed an offence. This court directed the release of the petitioners on bail with effect from October 12, 1971. Subsequently, despite the investigation conducted by the city police and the Coimbatore police, no offence cognizable by the police was found to have been committed by the petitioners and the police refrained from laying any charge-sheet against the petitioners. Thereupon, the petitioners filed a petition before the Sub-Magistrate, City I, Coimbatore, under section 523, Criminal Procedure Code, for return of the seized articles. At that stage, the Income-tax Officer, Coimbatore Division, filed a petition under Section 523, Criminal Procedure Code, praying for the delivery of the amount of Rs. 39,880 to him. The Superintendent of Central Excise, Gold Control Unit. Coimbatore, filed an application before the Magistrate for return of the gold ornaments, the primary gold weighing over 222 grams and the National Transistor of Japanese origin. The learned Sub-Magistrate dismissed the applications filed by the petitioners and directed the cash to be handed over to the income-tax department and the gold jewels and primary gold and transistor to he handed over to the Superintendent of Central Excise, Coimbatore. It is against this order that the present revision has been filed.

(2.) THE question arises as to who is the person entitled to possession of the articles in court deposit within the meaning of section 523, Criminal Procedure Code. So far as the cash amount is concerned, I think the order of the court below directing it to be paid into the hands of the income-tax department is correct. Under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras-II, has authorised the Income-tax Officer, Coimbatore City, to seize the amount of Rs. 39,880 from court deposit. He has said in his authorisation that, he had reason to believe that the said sum of Rs. 39,880 represents wholly or partly income which has not been disclosed by the petitioners for the purpose of the Indian Income-tax Act. THE material upon which he entertained his reason for his belief consisted of : (1) the circumstance that when the police seized the amount, there were no accounts with the petitioners, which could explain the source of the said sum of money; (2) the petitioners who were not income-tax assessees, were unable to explain the possession of the sum when questioned by the police ; and (3) on being contacted by the officials of the income-tax department, the petitioners were unable to give any explanation about the circumstances in which they came to possess the said sum. It is, therefore, clear that there was sufficient material upon which the Commissioner found that he had reason to believe that the sum of Rs. 39,880 represented undisclosed income of the petitioners. Normally, when no cognizable offence is made out by the police, the person entitled to the amount would be the person from whom it was seized by the police. But, where the Income-tax Officer is entitled under the law to seize the amount, he would be the person entitled to the possession of the amount in court custody. It has been held by the different High Courts in India that it would be an empty formality in the face of an application moved by the Income-tax Officer for delivery of the property to him, to have the property delivered to the persons from whom the police seized the same, and then allow the Income-tax Officer to seize it from those persons at the gate of the Magistrate's court. I have held in Criminal Revision Case No. 1088 of 1970 (Mohammed Kunhi v. Mohammed Koya, Since reported in ) that the power of seizure can be exercised even though the seizure is not preceded by a process of laborious search, and that the dictionary meaning of the word " search " being "Hook for " or " seek out", the intended seizure by the Income-tax Officer of the amount in court deposit fulfils the pre-condition of search. THE order of the court below in respect of the delivery of the cash amount to the Income-tax department is, therefore, confirmed.

(3.) SECTION 66 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, provides :