CHANDRA PRAKASH AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks registration of criminal cases against the respondents for their alleged illegal and high-handed activities and thereafter to get the cases investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation. A few other reliefs have also been claimed including the relief of awarding compensation.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he is running a sarrafa business under the name and style of Messrs. Garg and Co. in a shop situated below Halidya House, Johri Bazar, Jaipur. He also has "Dharam Kanta" in the corner of the said shop. Respondent No. 5, Chain Singh, joined as Station House Officer, Police Station, Manak Chowk, Jaipur, on or about January 10, 1991. According to the petitioner, respondents Nos. 6 and 7, namely, Anwar Khan and Sawai Singh, constables Nos. 3308 and 1842, respectively, were also posted at Manak Chowk Police Station under respondent No. 5, Chain Singh. Some time in the second week of January, 1991, each of them is said to have visited the shop of the petitioner and given out that Chain Singh has taken over as Station House Officer of the police station and if the petitioner wants to run his shop smoothly, it is better to fix up mahavari (monthly payment). THE petitioner did not agree to it and the abovenamed two respondents threatened the petitioner. On January 16, 1991, at about 1.30 p.m., according to the petitioner, respondents Nos. 6 and 7 again came to his shop and asked him as to what had been decided by him finally, and when the petitioner refused to agree to pay any monthly amount, it is alleged that they further threatened him. One Ashok Kumar Agrawal came to the shop. Ashok Kumar Agrawal is his own nephew and is running a shop of jewellery in Johri Bazar, Jaipur. According to the petitioner, the said Ashok Kumar Agrawal owed a sum of Rs. 2.90 lakhs to him which amount has been deposited by him with Ashok Kumar and Ashok Kumar Agrawal, on January 16, 1991, came with the said sum of Rs. 2.90 lakhs and was going to the bank and he gave a cheque to the petitioner to return the part of the amount which he (Ashok Kumar Agrawal) owed to the petitioner. It is the further case of the petitioner that the two constables, respondents Nos. 6 and 7, created an ugly scene there. It was at about 1.30 p.m. that Madan Lal happened to be at "Dharam Kanta" for weighment of gold and respondents Nos. 6 and 7 who were roaming outside the shop came up and picked one of the gold pieces from the "Dharam Kanta". THE petitioner protested. He and Madanlal raised a hue and cry. THE gold piece was returned by Anwar Khan, constable, but the accompanying constable, Sawai Singh, asked Anwar Khan to go to the police station and report the matter that the gold seized by them has been snatched away and he was asked to return with force. THE petitioner left his shop for taking legal advice and when he returned at 4 p.m. to the shop, he was told that Chain Singh, respondent No. 5, the then Station House Officer, with 10 to 12 constables had come to his shop and threatened Ashok Kumar with dire consequences and he also hurled filthy abuses and forcibly took the search of the shop without showing any authority and seized a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs lying in a bag and about 41/4 kg. silver was also taken into his possession by Chain Singh and the police party and some papers were also taken without giving any receipt. Ashok Kumar and Madanlal were taken to the police station. THE petitioner also reached the police station on coming to know this through his munim and Ashok Kumar gave out that severe beating was inflicted upon him and cash and silver and other account books have not been released. According to the petitioner, he tried to contact the higher authorities, but there was no response and, therefore, he met the Home Minister and on January 17, 1991, he submitted a complaint to various authorities.

(3.) COMING to the contention that even respondent No. 4, the Income-tax Officer, is in collusion with other respondents, it may be said that respondent No. 4 had come out with a case that action was taken under Section 132A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It is also the case of respondent No. 4 that, in fact, the cash and silver were not seized but they have been taken possession of from the Station House Officer, Police Station, Manak Chowk, and the proceedings under Section 132A of the Income-tax Act were initiated and the provisions of Section 132 of the Income-tax Act are applicable. A perusal of Section 132A, more so its Sub-section (1)(c), will show that, even if the officer mentioned therein, in consequence of information in his possession, has reason to believe that any assets represent either wholly or partly income or property which has not been, or would not have been, disclosed for the purposes of the Income-tax Act by any person from whose possession or control such assets have been taken into custody by any officer or authority under any other law for the time being in force, then such officer can authorise the Deputy Director, etc., to require the officer or authority to deliver such books of account, other documents or assets to the requisitioning officer. So far as documents are concerned, they are dealt with under Section 132A(1)(a) and (b). It will further be seen that as and when action is taken under Section 132A of the Income-tax Act, the provisions of Section 132 of that Act are applicable. From the papers shown to the court, it appears that, in respect of cash of Rs. 2 lakhs and silver weighing 4.865 kg. an order under Section 132(5) read with Section 132(7) of the Income-tax Act was made by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and the amount of Rs. 2 lakhs was taken in possession being unexplained and concealed income for the assessment year 1991-92. It will further be seen that the matter was taken to the Commissioner of Income-tax who so far as the retention of the jewellery is concerned, made an order in favour of the petitioner. Thus, it cannot be said that the Income-tax Officer was in collusion with respondent No. 5. The action was taken in accordance with the provisions of the Income-tax Act and there have been orders also referred to above under the Income-tax Act.