GULABRAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) THE petitioner Gulab Rai Utu Mal is a Saraf of Jodhpur and carries on business of sale and purchase of bullion in the city. On 27th September, 1958, the police of Jodhpur headed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who is a respondent to the application, raided the petitioner's shop situate in Sarafa Bazar. THEy seized three books of account of the petitioner being his Sahi Baki, Kachchi Rokar and Pakki Rokar. This search and recovery appears to have been made in connection with the Investigation of some complaint dated 26th September, 1958, purporting to refer to offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code as also under sec. 167 (81) of the Sea Customs Act (VIII of 1878) read with sec. 23 of the Foreign Exchange Act (VII of 1947 ). Nearly a month after the search, i. e. , on 25th October, 1958, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police summoned the petitioner and asked him to produce four bill books of his shop. He was again summoned on 30th October, 1958, and asked to produce the Khata Bahi. It is alleged by the petitioner that even after the seizure of these hooks of account the police authorities did not make any final report against the petitioner as they should have done during all this period nor did they return his account books inspite of repeated demands; on the contrary they appear to have handed over the books of account to the Land Customs authorities. On 18th May, 1960, the petitioner received a letter from the Superintendent, Customs Division, Jodhpur, in which it was stated that the said Officer had scrutinised the petitioner's records and since notices on certain persons from whom gold appears to have been purchased by the petitioner were not served, he was asked to furnish correct addresses of those persons. THE petitioner challenges the above action of the authorities as being wholly without jurisdiction and unwarranted in law. He accordingly prays ' that a writ of mandamus or any appropriate direction may be issued to the respondents compelling them to return the books of account to the petitioner of which they arc in illegal possession and also preventing them from taking any action to force the petitioner to make certain disclosures as required by the Customs authorities.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that on the face of the letter dated 22nd of November, 1960, there it no case against the petitioner and, therefore, no action should be taken against him. THE petitioner docs not dispute the position that if on investigation the authorities arc satisfied that there arc materials available for his prosecution, the authorities would be entitled to initiate any appropriate proceeding known to law. In the writ petition all that he prays is to direct the police and the Customs authorities to return the books of account to him and nor to force the petitioner to disclose the addresses of the various customers as required by the letter dated 18th May, 1960. We have already said that we see no reason to interfere with the investigation which is being conducted by the authorities on these grounds. It is difficult for us to say at this stage whether or not they have any adequate material for launching any prosecution against the petitioner cither under the Indian Penal Code or under the Sea Customs Act; but before parting with the case we would like to observe that the matter has already covered a long period and it is desirable and even essential in the interest of justice that the investigations should be completed at an early date and the authorities should make up their mind one way or the Other whether to prosecute the petitioner or to submit a final report in his favour. It is also desirable that the books of account and other documents seized, unless otherwise needed for the exigencies of the investigation, should be returned to the petitioner as early as possible.