NEMI CHAND SINGHVI Vs. D S SANDHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition filed by Nemi Chand Singhvi, Surendra Chand Singhvi, Shyambehari Chand Singhvi and Omprakash Chand Singhvi under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:

(2.) THE writ petition arises under the following circumstances: The petitioners are partners of a registered partnership firm known as Om Electricals and Winding Stores, situated opposite to the Gol Building, Jalori Gate, Jodhpur. The said firm is an income -tax assessee having registration No. Order 309/SSC whereas the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 also are assessees under the Income Tax Act At about 11 a.m. on April 24, 1980, Shyambehari Chand Singhvi, petitioner No 3, was present at the shop of his firm. The Income Tax Officer, Shri Chopra, non petitioner No 2. came to the shop of the petitioners along with two Inspectors, namely. Shri Choudhary and Gurnani, non -petitioners Nos. 8 and 9 respectively. Shri Chopra and his two associates started searching the shop without letting know the petitioners the purpose of doing so. They forcibly obtained the signatures of Shyambehari Chand on a piece of paper and refused to give a copy thereof to the petitioner despite his repeated requests. During the search. Chopra and his companions asked Shyambehari Chand petitioner for cold drinks and other eatables and the petitioner had to comply with their wishes. After the search was practically over, the Income Tax Officer Mr. Chopra left the premises for some time leaving behind his two associates Inspector Gurnani, in the absence of Mr. Chopra, demanded a sum of Rs. 2500/ -, as bribe from the petitioner for sparing the latter. The petitioner, however, did not accede to the demand and asked the Inspectors to demand bribe from his ether partiers, who were scheduled to arrive at the shop after some time. At about 1 p.m. the Inspectors asked for meals and Shyambehari Chand petitioner fetched meals from Pankaj Hotel. After the meals were served to the inspectors, Shri Surendra Chand, Singhvi, petitioner No 2, came to the shop directly from Pali. The Inspectors present at the shop told Surendra Chand that per instructions of the Income -Tax Officer Shri Chopra they had demanded a sum of Rs. 2500/ -, as bribe for winding up the survey and the search. Surendra Chand declined to give the bribe and told the Inspectors that there was no irregularity in the accounts of the firm and the latter were free to proceed against the petitioners in any manner they asked. By that time the Income Tax Officer Shri Chopra also arrived at the shop and enquired from petitioner No. 2 Surendra Chand Singhvi whether the latter bad satisfied the demands of the Inspectors. However, petitioner No. 2 refused to meet the demand. Mr. Chopra, thereupon, lost his temper and started threatening the petitioners with dire consequences in case the bribe was not given. Hs misbehaved with the petitioner and went to the extent of snatching money from the pocket of petitioner No. 2. In the course of such attempt he pushed the petitioner No. 2 and began to hurle vulgar abuses at him. The other two Inspectors also joined Mr. Chopra in manhandling the petitioners. This eventually led to a scuffle that ensued between the two petitioners on the one hand and the Inspectors on the other. A small crowd of persons assembled there and the two Inspectors ran away from the scene of the occurrence. Petitioner No. 2 tried to inform the police upon telephone but Mr. Chopra, non -petitioner No. 2, did not allow him to do so. The two Inspectors, who had run away from the shop, contacted the Impeding Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Mr. Parekh non -petitioner No 6 on telephone, who sold the petitioners that he had rebuked Mr. Chopra for indulging in nefarious activities and directed to withdraw the raid party. Mr. H.C Parekh requested the petitioner No. 2 on telephone to patch up the matter immediately at d not to submit any first information report of the accident to the police but forget and forgive. Thereafter Mr. R.K. Chopra also apologised to the petitioners. The petitioners, therefore, did not lodge any first information report with the police against Mr. Chopra and the two Inspectors.

(3.) IN support of the writ petition, Mr. Shyambehari Chand, petitioner, has put in his affidavit. The writ petition came up for admission before the Vacation Judge on 14 -5 -1980 and notice was issued to the non -petitioners to show cause why the writ petition be not admitted. In response to the show cause notice, Mr. H.M Parekh, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the non -petitioner No 1. Nobody appeared on behalf of the other non petitioners despite service. On behalf of the non -petitioner No. 1 a written reply was filed to the show cause notice wherein all the allegations made against Shri R.K. Chopra and the two Inspectors Shri Asan Das Verma Gurnani in the writ petition were denied and it was alleged that the petitioners did not co -operate with the Income -Tax authorities in conducting the survey and misbehaved with and insulted them. It was further alleged that the Commissioner of Income -Tax had reason to believe in consequence of information in his possession that the petitioners would not produce books of accounts or other documents, which would be useful and relevant to the proceedings under the Act if for production of which notices were issued to them or might be issued to them. He further had reasons to believe in consequence of information in his possession that the petitioners were in possession of money, ballion, jewellery and ether valuable ornaments which had not been or would not be disclosed for the purpose of the Act and which were undisclosed income or property. The Commissioner of Income -Tax, therefore, authorised Shri S L. Sebarwal and Shri N Das Income Tax Officers to search the residential premises of the petitioners and lo seize books of accounts, other documents, money, bullion or jewellery or other valuable articles which had not been, or would not be, disclosed far the purposes of the Act, He further authorised Income Tax Officer Shri R P. Sharma and R G Jain to search business premises of the petitioners and to seize any books of accounts, other documents, money jewellery etc. which may be found as undisclosed income or property of the petitioners. In the written reply it was averred that these authorised officers conducted search in a legal and fair manner and seized books of accruals and other documents and jewellery in accordance with the procedure laid down by law. It was further urged that the Income Tax Officer, Special Survey Circle, Jodhpur, had taken proceedings under Section 132(5) of the Act against the petitioners which are pending enquiry before him. The proceedings are perfectly legal and within the jurisdiction of the Income -Tax Officer. If the petitioners afforded satisfactory explanation for the source of acquisition of the jewellery and valuables recovered from them, the property and the books of accounts, which were seized, will be released immediately. In short, it was alleged in the written reply that the writ petition is misconceived and untenable and is liable to be dismissed summarily. In support of the reply, Mr. G.L. Murthy, Income Tax Officer (Judicial) office of the Commissioner of Income -Tax, Mr. R K Chopra, Mr. Asan Das Verumal Gurnani, and Asa Ram Choudhary have put in their affidavits. On behalf of the petitioners, a rejoinder to the written reply submitted by the Commissioner of Income -Tax was filed along with the affidavit of Shyambehari Chand Singhvi in support thereof.