Judgment

DESAI, J. :- Appellants who are husband and wife-respectively moved Civil Writ Petition No. 2163 of 1980 in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana praying for quashing of a search warrant issued by respondent No. 2 Assistant Director, Enforcement on August 24, 1979 as also the warrant. of authorisation issued by respondent No. 5 - Commissioner of Income-tax, Jullundur on April 9, 1980 and for a direction to return articles seized during the search of his house on August 24. 1979 and for .relief incidental and ancillary thereto.,

2. Briefly stated, the allegations were that respondent No. 6 - Shri J. S. Ahuluwalia, Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax at Jullundur bore personal malice towards the appellants, amongst others, attributable to an incident concerning the servant of the appellants and an application for transfer of appeals pending before him made to the Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes by the first appellant. Actuated by this personal malice, respondent No. 6 first instigated respondent No. 2 to issue a search warrant under the authority of which a raid was carried out at the residence of the appellants on August 24, 1979 which led to the seizure of certain documents including some foreign currency. Thereafter, when the appellants made various representations for return of documents, again instigated by respondent No. 6, respondent No. 5 issued a warrant of authorisation under Sec. 132A of the Income-tax Act on April 9, 1984 by which respondent No. 2 was directed to deliver such books of accounts and other documents and goods seized during the search to the requisitioning officer. As the documents and material seized during the search had not been returned, the writ petition as aforementioned was filed for the reliefs hereinabove set out.

3. When the writ petition came up before a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Mr. Kuldip Singh, learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the Directorate of Enforcement Department made a statement that the Directorate has closed the proceedings and does not want to take any action against the appellants on account of the search. The High Court observed that in view of this statement, the Directorate of Enforcement would normally be required to return the seized material to the appellants but it was noticed that as the same was sealed under a warrant of authorisation issued under Sec. 132A of the Income-tax Act, an order for return of the same cannot be made. The High Court also took note of the statement made by Mr. D. N. Avathy that the Income-tax Department was still scrutinising the seized documents. The High Court was of the opinion that there was nothing illegal in the issuance of search warrant, the consequent search, the seizure during the search and taking over of the documents by the Income-tax Department under Sec. 132A. The High Court accordingly dismissed the petition. Hence this appeal by special leave.

4. Dr. Partap Singh, the first appellant who appeared in person submitted that respondent No. 2 acted in a manner contrary to law in issuing a search warrant when there was no material before him on which he could entertain a reasonable belief that any documents which in his opinion will be useful for, or relevant to, in investigation or proceedings under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (Act for short) are secreted in any place, whereupon alone he may authorise any officer of Enforcement to search for and seize or may himself search for and seize such documents. It was also contended that as the second respondent did not record his reasons in writing on which reasonable belief was entertained, the search warrant issued by him was illegal.

5. Sec. 37 of the Act confers power on any officer of enforcement not below the rank of Assistant Director of Enforcement to search premises. This power can be exercised if the officer has reason to believe that any documents which in his opinion will be useful for, or relevant to, any investigation or pr