2020 (3) TMI 1089 - HC - Income Tax

Money seized in search - seeking order or direction directing the 1st respondent to release and disburse to the petitioner, the amount withheld illegally - HELD THAT - First respondent had earlier filed appeal before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pattambi under Section 451 of Cr.P.C and under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for getting the custody of the amount seized by the 2nd respondent to the Income Tax Department, which was allowed by the learned Magistrate. It is also equally not in dispute, that aggrieved by the said order rendered by the learned Magistrate, the petitioner has preferred a Crl.Revision Petition which is now pending before the Sessions Court, Palakkad. Since the legality and correctness of the said issue decided by the learned Magistrate in giving custody of the seized amount to the 2nd respondent is now pending consideration before the Sessions Court,even going by the admitted case of the petitioner, it is not right and proper for the petitioner to approach this Court with similar prayers so as to short circuit the hierarchy of remedies available thereunder. In case if the petitioner has any grievances, it is for the petitioner to move the said Sessions Court for final orders. Even thereafter, in case if the petitioner has any legally justiciable grievances thereto, he certainly has various other remedies to challenge the same, including the option of filing an appropriate petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C before this Court. The matter is pending before the Sessions Court and when further remedies are available for the petitioner, it is not right and proper for this Court to short circuit the said due process and make a frog leap by resorting to proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Going by the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the other prayers in the writ petition including prayers no. 1 and 3, should be entertained by this Court on merits and it is not a fit case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the light of these aspects, the petitioner is bereft of any merits and the same will stand dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over the custody of seized amount between Income Tax Department and the petitioner.
2. Legality and correctness of the order regarding custody of seized amount.
3. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the writ petition.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Dispute over the custody of seized amount
The petitioner, a dealer of gold ornaments, was involved in a case where a significant amount of money was seized by the 2nd respondent without proper documentation. The Income Tax Department initiated proceedings to obtain custody of the seized amount. The petitioner challenged this action, claiming to have provided necessary documents to explain the source of the money. The dispute arose due to the alleged lack of proper documentation for transporting the money, leading to criminal proceedings against the accused.

Issue 2: Legality and correctness of the order regarding custody of seized amount
The High Court noted that the legality and correctness of the order granting custody of the seized amount to the Income Tax Department were already under consideration in a Criminal Revision Petition pending before the Sessions Court. The Court emphasized the importance of following the hierarchy of remedies available and refrained from entertaining similar prayers in the writ petition, as it could short-circuit the due process. The Court highlighted that the petitioner should address any grievances through the appropriate legal channels, including potential challenges under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Issue 3: Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the writ petition
While acknowledging the petitioner's concerns, the High Court concluded that the writ petition did not present sufficient grounds to warrant the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court determined that since the matter was already pending before the Sessions Court with further legal remedies available, it was not appropriate to bypass the established legal procedures by resorting to proceedings under Article 226. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner lacked merit in seeking relief through the High Court.

In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the writ petition, emphasizing the importance of following the established legal procedures and hierarchy of remedies available to address grievances effectively. The judgment underscored the significance of respecting due process and refraining from circumventing the legal framework in seeking redressal for disputes related to the custody of seized amounts and ongoing legal proceedings.