JOINT COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE WING BOARD OF REVENUE C T MADRAS Vs. PURUSHOTHAM RUNGTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition involves the question as to whether, where documents have been illegally seized and the court has ordered them to be returned, but it has allowed photostat copies of the documents to be retained in court in a sealed cover pending further direction, their user by the department can be permitted. On 11th July, 197 2 , on the strength of a search warrant issued by the Chief presidency Magistrate in R. O. C. No. 4794 of 1972, the residence bearing door no. 24, Nannian Street, Park Town, Madras-3, was searched and certain documents were seized. THE application made by one Thiru Daniel, Joint commercial Tax Officer, Central Intelligence Wing, Board of Revenue, Madras, for the issue of warrant stated : "i have received information that Thiru Andhra Steel corporation, No. 304, Thambu Chetty Street, Madras-1, has kept his secret account books, etc. , in his residence at No. 24, Nannian Street, Park Town, madras-3, relating to his business and as they are required in connection with an enquiry against him under the General Sales Tax Act, 1959, may be issued with a warrant to search and to recover the books from the place mentioned under section 98, Criminal Procedure Code, read with section 41 of the Madras general Sales Tax Act, 1959. " A warrant was issued adopting that language. It may be mentioned that the Andhra Steel Corporation has its registered head office at Calcutta and has a branch at No. 304, Thambu Chetty Street , Madras -1. THE petitioner in W. P. No. 2273 of 1972 is one Purshothamlal Rungta, whose premises are No. 24, Nannian Street ,Park Town, Madras-3, and he had nothing to do with the Andhra Steel Corporation, though it appears, his younger brother, one Sajjan Kumar Rungta, was the manager of that corporation, a company registered under the Companies Act. Purshothamlal Rungta applied in w. P. No. 2273 of 1972 for a writ of mandamus directing return of the documents to him on the ground that the seizure thereof was illegal. This matter was heard by a Division Bench, to which one of us was a party. After arguments, the then First Assistant Government Pleader undertook that the documents would be returned in six weeks. On that basis an order to that effect was made by this court. This order was dated 15th February, 1973. This order was modified on 28th March, 1973 , and as modified, it read : "with reference to our earlier order dated 15th february, 1973, the learned Advocate-General, who appears for the revenue, states that, even if the originals are handed to the petitioner, certified copies thereof, after comparing with the originals, should be retained in this court in a sealed cover subject to further directions of this court. We accordingly direct that the original order dated 15th February, 1973, should be complied with except that certified copies of the originals relating to M/s. Andhra Steel Corporation Ltd. , will be kept in the custody of court in a sealed bundle or cover awaiting further directions from this court. " *

(2.) THE present application is for a direction to enable the revenue to make use of the copies and then return them to Purshothamlal Rungta. Mr. Venugopal, who appears for Purshothamlal Rungta, objects to any such directions being given on three grounds : Firstly, the company has no residence in Madras as comprehended by the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and the branch office of the company at Madras can in no sense be regarded as the residence of the company. Actually the search was not even in the branch office, but at the residence of Purshothamlal rungta, who had nothing to do with the corporation. THE fact that the Chief presidency Magistrate did not apply his mind while issuing the warrant to these aspects rendered the search and seizure of the documents illegal. Secondly, the seizure of the documents was not accompanied by a mahazar attested by witnesses as required by the provisions of section 103 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Thirdly, in any case, the documents were retained by the revenue beyond 30 days in violation of section 41 (3) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. But we find that there is no controversy before us on the question that he seizure of the documents was illegal. It is not also in controversy that since the seizure was illegal, the documents are bound to be returned to Purshothamlal Rungta. As a matter of fact, this court has ordered the originals to be returned, which has been carried out. That being the case, the grounds as raised by Mr. Venugopal for Rungta do not arise for consideration. But the precise question we are called upon to decide is as to the permissibility of the user, for the purpose of assessment, of the photostat copies of the originals seized illegally. We have a line of cases in this court consistently taking the view that though the illegally seized documents have been made use of in a revenue assessment, the order of assessment on that ground will not be rendered illegal or void, because admissibility of such documents does not depend upon the source or the manner in which they are obtained, but on the relevancy and their admissibility. One of the earliest cases holding that view is Annamalai chettiar & Co. v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer decided by one of us. THE view was rested on the ratio of Kuruma v. Queen. But Mr. Venugopal's contention is that if, before the revenue makes use of the copies in making the assessment, his client is vigilant enough to come to this court and ask for forbidding of such user, the revenue cannot resist issuing such direction.