9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been definite evidence in this regard, but for a period of 8 months no information was collected and all of a sudden the warrant of authorization was issued. From the perusal of panchnama prepared during seizure it appears that no objectionable document or undisclosed property was found except those which were declared in the earlier return. There is no other evidence available on record that the document Annexure RJ-1 relates to the petitioner and the word 'ch' of which correctness is disputed by the petitioner indicates to the petitioner. In absence of any cogent reasons in the present matter warrant of authorization could not have been issued. Issuance of warrant of authorization is a serious action and for this authorization officer should have recorded his satisfaction. Though normally this Court is not looking to the reasons of satisfaction, but in the present case it appears that the warrant of authorization was issued merely on hypothecated grounds, which is not sustainable under the law. In the present case, we have examined the entire proceedings, satisfaction note, the document Annexure RJ-1, which is the basis for issuance of warrant of authorization and ultimately ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hotocopies of their official passport and rest 6 pages were either dumb documents or were not related with the petitioners. Similarly 31 pages were seized from petitioner no.1's father-in-law, who had retired from Indian Army in 1984 and was residing in the Guest House of the residence of the petitioner, who had came at the relevant time to visit his daughter. Cash of ₹ 27,767/-, gold jewellery weighing 435 grams, silver utensils and articles worth ₹ 2.07 lakh were found in the possession of petitioners. A panchnama Annexure P-1 was prepared in respect of the aforesaid search and seizure memo was also prepared. This search and seizure has been challenged by the petitioners by filing present petition on the grounds :- (a) that there was no satisfaction recorded by the respondents for issuing order of search. The power could have been exercised only when in consequence of information in the possession of the respondents/He had reasons to believe that any person to whom summon or notice might have been issued will not or cause to produce any books of account useful to any proceeding under the Act or the property which could have been found in possession of the perso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ely thereafter, the respondent no.4 on 28.5.2008 issued warrant of authorization and on 30.5.2008 the search was conducted. Stating aforesaid it was submitted that the entire action on the part of respondent is mala fide and tainted with the act of prejudiced-mind and on this ground warrant of authorization could not have been issued. No recovery or any illegal property was seized from the premises of the petitioners, however on 25.1.2010 a notice under section 153A of the Act was issued and the petitioner no.1 was suspended and on 19.3.2010 though a chargesheet was issued, but on 9.11.2012 the said was dropped. It is submitted that there is no delay on the part of petitioners in challenging the aforesaid action. It is also submitted by the petitioners that the search and seizure could have been challenged only by filing a petition and for this purpose no other proceeding except invocation of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India could have been made. 5. In reply to it Shri Sanjay Lal submitted that on the basis of search and seizure an order of assessment has been passed and appeal against such an order has been partially allowed by the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r may be looked into. 9. The learned counsel for Revenue has produced the satisfaction note in a sealed cover for the perusal of this Court and from the perusal of satisfaction note it appears that the satisfaction note is in respect of three officers including petitioner no.1 Rajesh Rajora and the entire satisfaction note is centered in respect of the search conducted in the premises of Dr. Yogi Raj Sharma and on the basis of document Annexure RJ-1 it has been recorded that Dr. Rajesh Rajora had invested money in the house and land property. The aforesaid money was received by him in respect of supply orders of medicines, medical equipments etc. It appears that the entire basis of recording satisfaction was the search conducted in the premises of Dr. Yogi Raj Sharma it will be pertinent to mention here that the document Annexure RJ-1 does not bear the name of either of the petitioners, but on the basis of word 'ch' a conclusion has been recorded that it indicates to the petitioner no.1. In absence of name, what was the evidence before the respondents to indicate that the word 'ch' indicates to the petitioner is not there. Apart from this Dr. Yogi Raj Sharma in h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been defined as a 'statement of fact employed as an argument to justify or condemn some act. On the other hand the word 'conclusion' is defined as the judgment arrived at by reasoning; an inference; deduction, etc'. A necessary concomitant of this approach is that the facts constituting information' must be relevant to the enquiry. They must be such that a reasonable and prudent man can come to the requisite belief or conclusion therefrom. If either of the aforementioned elements is missing, the action of the authority shall be regarded as lying outside the ambit and scope of the law and such an action would be liable to be struck down on the basis of what is commonly known as 'legal malice'. Similar view has been taken in other cases. 12. In the present case, in September 2007 the search was carried out in the premises of Dr. Yogi Raj Sharma. The document Annexure RJ-1 was seized by the respondents. At the relevant time petitioner no. 1 was the Chief Health Secretary and this fact was within the knowledge of the respondents, but why the search was conducted on 30.5.2008 after a period of near about 9 months, there is no explanation in this regard. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
