Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.63 seconds)The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Pooran Mal Etc vs Director Of Inspection ... on 14 December, 1973
In fact, it seems to us that the question is
concluded by Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection [1974] 93 I.T.R. 505
(S.C). That was a case of an illegal seizure in connection with income-tax
proceedings. Among others, one of the questions that was decided has a
http://www.judis.nic.in direct bearing to the instant case before us. The Supreme Court, dealing
5/8
WP.No.31825 of 2015
with that question, held in that case:
Article 19 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Shri Ramkishan Srikishan Jhaver And ... vs Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And ... on 25 February, 1965
4. It is true that the fundamental right of a citizen to property
includes also illegally seized documents and their copies and that no
property can be seized except under the authority of law. But neither of
these rights really seems to impinge upon the basic rights under Article 19
and also Article 31 of the Constitution of India. The Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the American Constitution have been looked upon or
interpreted by the American Courts in a slightly different way, but not
always consistently. In any case, as we have already indicated, the same
principle which holds valid an order which has used illegally seized
documents informs the permissibility of the user of such documents in the
process of making an assessment order. That principle is inherent in
Kuruma v. Queen [1955] A.C. 197 and also R.S. Jhaver v. Commissioner
of Commercial Taxes [1965] 16 S.T.C. 708 and all the subsequent cases
which followed that principle.
Balwant Singh And Tohers vs R. D. Shah, Director Of Inspection, ... on 22 March, 1968
Balwant Singh's case, referred to above, is reported in [1969]
71 I.T.R. 550. We understand that an appeal had been filed to this court
but was not prosecuted. That decision not only upheld the constitutionality
of Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, but also held that there was nothing
in Article 19 of the Constitution which forbids the use of evidence obtained
as a result of an illegal search.