BALKRISHNA RAMGOPAL RUIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought to recover the necklace belonging to him from the Revenue. The necklace was seized by the Department from the locker standing in the name of respondent No. 6 with the Bank of Baroda, Napean Sea Road Branch, on 5th March, 1973.

(2.) SHRI Parikh, learned counsel for the petitioner, invites the Court's attention to the fact that the necklace in question was taxed in the petitioner's hands. The petitioner has now paid tax in respect thereof and, therefore, it should be returned to the petitioner. When this matter came up for hearing the other day, Dr. Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the Department, stated that since the necklace was seized by the IT Department from the bank locker of Shakti Trading Co. (P) Ltd., respondent No. 6, during a raid conducted by the Department, the Department cannot return the necklace to the petitioner. It has to be returned to the person from whom it was seized. The case was adjourned for enabling the petitioner to obtain an affidavit from Shakti Trading Co. (P) Ltd., to the effect that it had no objection to the Department's handing over the necklace to the petitioner. An affidavit has been filed today, a copy of which has been supplied to Dr. Balasubramanian. According to Dr. Balasubramanian, the Department should not be asked to hand over the necklace to the petitioner even now as Shakti Trading Co. (P) Ltd., might claim the necklace from the Department or it might be needed in some recovery of taxes from. Shakti Trading Co. (P) Ltd.,

(3.) IN the result, the petition succeeds. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a)(iv). No order as to costs.