1993 (3) TMI 50 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved: Registration of criminal cases, investigation by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), alleged illegal activities by police officials, seizure of cash and silver, involvement of Income-tax authorities, and compensation claims.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Registration of Criminal Cases and Investigation by CBI:
The petitioner sought the registration of criminal cases against the respondents for their alleged illegal activities and requested that these cases be investigated by the CBI. The court noted that the petitioner alleged harassment and illegal demands for monthly payments by the police officials. However, the respondents denied these allegations through affidavits. The court found that there was no concrete evidence to support the petitioner's claims and that the incident was not reported immediately. The court concluded that no prima facie case was made out for CBI investigation and suggested that the petitioner could file a complaint in the competent court.

2. Alleged Illegal Activities by Police Officials:
The petitioner claimed that the police officials, including the Station House Officer, demanded monthly payments to allow the smooth running of his business. The court observed that these allegations were denied by the respondents and that an inquiry into the incident did not reveal any truth in the petitioner's claims. The court noted that there was no mention of the alleged demands in the initial complaints submitted by the petitioner to various authorities.

3. Seizure of Cash and Silver:
The petitioner alleged that the police officials seized Rs. 2 lakhs and 4.865 kg of silver from his shop without proper authority. The respondents justified the seizure under Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which allows police officers to seize property suspected to be involved in an offense. The court found that the power to seize was exercised lawfully and there was no evidence of mala fide intent or ulterior motives. The court also noted that the seizure took place after 4 p.m., contrary to the petitioner's claim that it happened at 1 p.m.

4. Involvement of Income-tax Authorities:
The petitioner alleged collusion between the police and the Income-tax authorities, claiming that the seized cash and silver were handed over to the Income-tax Officer under false pretenses. The Income-tax Officer responded that the action was taken under Section 132A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which allows requisition of assets suspected to be undisclosed income. The court upheld the actions of the Income-tax authorities, noting that the proceedings were conducted in accordance with the law and that orders were made under the Income-tax Act.

5. Compensation Claims:
The petitioner sought compensation for the alleged illegal actions of the respondents. However, the court found no merit in the petitioner's claims and dismissed the writ petition without any order as to costs.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's allegations. The court concluded that the actions of the police and Income-tax authorities were lawful and that no prima facie case was made out for CBI investigation. The petitioner was advised to file a complaint in the competent court if he wished to pursue the matter further.