9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (2) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i, petitioner, and in consequence thereof the Assistant Director, Intelligence, visited the residence of the petitioner on 6th September, 1974, and took into possession silver utensils valued at Rs. 16,000 along with six books of account of the firm in which the petitioner was the sole proprietor. He also took into possession 46 books relating to the affairs of her husband, Roshan Lal Aggarwal. On 10th September, 1974, the two lockers maintained by the petitioner jointly with her daughter-in-law were opened. Locker No. 399 was found to be empty but from Locker No. 313 certain gold jewellery of the value of about Rs. 80,000 was seized and taken into possession. On or about 14th September, 1974, another Locker No. 329, which was being operate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r (annex. P-4) which is challenged by way of this writ petition under arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. In the case of Anil Kumar Aggarwal, petitioner, the order under section 132(5) of the Act (annex. P-5) is challenged, whereby cash amounting to Rs. 1,75,000 was retained. The only point canvassed by Mr. Bhagirath Dass, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the impugned orders were issued beyond 90 days of the date of seizure and were time-barred. Thus, the only question left for determination, is, whether the orders (annex. P-4 and P-5) dated 8th January, 1975, were issued beyond the period of ninety days and hence void. Admittedly, the orders under section 132(5) of the Act could be passed within ninety days from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment seized from the Station House Officer some of the articles and the I.T. Dept. seized the other articles. The assessee filed a writ petition in the High Court to get back the articles in the possession of the I.T. authorities. The dispute in that case was, whether the seizure by the police will be considered as the seizure by the I.T. authorities. The contention of the I.T. Dept. was that the seizure of articles by the Solan Police was on behalf the I.T. Dept. and was not on behalf of the petitioner under the Cr. PC. It was held that when the Station House Officer gets information about some articles which are suspected to be stolen or regarding which some offence is suspected to have been committed, he is entitled to seize the said art ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter. Reference may be made to the Supreme Court authority Durga Prasad v. H. R. Gomes, Superintendent (Prevention), Central Excise, Nagpur, AIR 1966 SC 1209, wherein it was observed as follows (p. 1210): " It cannot be said that the power of seizure must necessarily involve, in every case, the act of physical possession of the person who had a right to seize the articles. It was true that the documents had been sent to Delhi by the Superintendent of Customs and Central Excise for a limited purpose and for a limited period. But he was still in legal possession of the documents, for he had the right to control the use of the documents and to exclude persons who should or should not have access to the documents. The Collector, by his ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
