1966 (11) TMI 18 - HC - Income Tax

This application in revision has been brought by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner against the order passed by Additional District Magistrate, judicial substantially dismissing the petition made before him on behalf of the petitioner, for the safe custody of currency and gold bars and ingots and gold ornaments which were seized in connection with some criminal case pending before him for disposal

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for safe custody of seized currency and gold bars.
2. Interpretation of Section 132 of the Income-tax Act.
3. Jurisdiction of the Special Magistrate.
4. Finality of previous court orders.
5. Revision against the order.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The application in revision was brought by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Cuttack, against the order passed by the Special Magistrate substantially dismissing the petition for the safe custody of seized currency and gold bars in connection with a criminal case. The cash, gold bars, ingots, and ornaments were seized during a search at a residence. A previous order directed the release of the cash, which had become final as no revision was filed against it. Subsequently, a petition was filed for suitable orders regarding the seized properties, leading to the current application.

2. Section 132 of the Income-tax Act provides for a special procedure for search and seizure in specific situations. The authorized officer is empowered to enter, search, and seize items like books of account, money, bullion, and jewelry. Sub-section (3) allows the officer to serve an order prohibiting the removal or dealing with the seized items without permission. In this case, no search was conducted by the authorized officer under Section 132(1)(i) before the seizure of the properties. The absence of an authorized search raises questions about the applicability of the provisions for seizure and subsequent actions.

3. The jurisdiction of the Special Magistrate was invoked to consider the application for safe custody of the seized properties. However, the court found that the previous order releasing the cash had already been finalized, rendering the matter functus officio. As a result, the court held that there was no basis for granting relief to the petitioner regarding the seized cash and gold items. The court's analysis focused on the procedural aspects and the limits of the court's jurisdiction in such matters.

4. The court emphasized the finality of previous court orders, particularly the order releasing the cash seized during the search. As no revision was filed against the earlier order, it had attained finality, precluding any further action or relief related to the cash amount. This aspect of finality played a crucial role in determining the outcome of the current application for safe custody of the seized properties.

5. The court ultimately dismissed the application, concluding that no relief could be granted to the petitioner based on the circumstances and the existing legal framework. Given the finality of previous court orders and the lack of authorized search under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, the court found the application to be unsustainable. Consequently, the court held that there was no basis for maintaining a revision against the order in the higher court, leading to the dismissal of the application.