Madras High Court
Babu Rao vs Inspector Of Police And Another on 20 November, 1990
Equivalent citations: [1991]190ITR616(MAD)
JUDGMENT Janarthanam, J.
1. The Inspector of Police, B-2, Police Station, Madras, arrested one Sadhashiv Rao on April 14, 1988, when he was found in possession of Rs. 3,25,506 under section 101 read with s ection 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and registered a case in Crime No. 262 of 1988 (AFIR No. 548 of 1988) and produced him before the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras, on April 15, 1988. He also handed over the amount seized to the court and the siad amount was credited to the criminal court deposit in that crime number. On his arrest, the said Sadhashiv Rao is stated to have given a statement to the polioce that the amount had been handed over to him by one Janardhan Sait of Sowcarpet, Madras, and he was later released on bail on April 18, 1988.
2. On April 25, 1988, the petitioner filed Criminal M.P. No. 248 of 1988 in the said Crime Number in AFIR No. 548 of 1988 praying for the return of the amounts seized from Sadhashiv Rao and deposited into court.
3. The Assistant Director of Inspection, on his being authorised by the Director of Inspection, Income-tax Department, also filed an application under section 451, Criminal Procedure Code, read with sections 132 and 132A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), praying for the return of the amount to the Income-tax Department.
4. The learned Magistrate, on consideration of the materials available on record and on hearing the arguments of both sides, ordered the reture of the amount to the Income-tax Department. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner has come forward with the present action, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this court, to set aside the order so passed by the learned Magistrate.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner started his arguments in a flamboyant style by stating that the income-tax authorities have no power to size the amount in court deposit, even under the amended provisions as adumbrated insection 132A of the Act, inasmuch as "authority" as mentioned in that section can, by no stretch of imagination, be construed to include "court" and, therefore, the order passed by the Magistrate is liable to be set aside.
6. Learned counsel apperaing for the Income-tax Department would, however, repel such a submission.
7. It is not as if the Assistant Director of Inspection filed the requisition in the court and seized the amount available from the custody of the court. As already referred to in the statement of facts, he has filed an application under section 451, Criminal Procedure Code, read with section 132 and 132A of the Act praying for the return of the amounts seized by the police and deposited in the court, as such money is the undisclosed income of the petitioner. The court passed an order only on such an application in ordering the return of the amount seized to the Income-tax Department. If the amount had been seized from the custody of the court by filing of a requisition by the Assistant Director of Inspection, the matter has to be looked at from a different angle, to see whether he had such power under the amended provisions of section 132A of the Act.
8. In such a situation there will be a necessity for the cort to interpret the word "authority" and decide whether such a word would include "court". The case on hand is not one reflecting such a situation. As such, there is no necessity to give any interpretation to the word "authority" as found used in section 132A of the Act. Since the orede has been passed by the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate under section 451, Criminal Procedure Code, read with sections 132 and 132A of the Act, on a request emerging from the Income-tax Department, the legality of the order passed as such cannot at all be canvassed, inasmuch as he is legitimately, entitled to pass an order under section 451, Criminal Procedure Code, respecting the return of the property seized and produced befor the court to a person entitled to possession of the property seized. The income-tax authorities, in the eye of law, can be construed as the person entitled to seize and to have custody of the property in the shape of undisclosed income.
9. In this view of the matter, the petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.