2009 Supreme(SC) 1767

2009(8) Supreme 465
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.V. Raveendran & K.S. Radhakrishnan JJ,
Rajendran Chingaravelu — Appellant
versus
Mr. R.K. Mishra, Addl. Commissioner of I T & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7914 of 2009
Decided on : 24-11-2009

IMPORTANT POINTS
1.Clause (2) of Article 226 makes it clear that the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action arises wholly or in part, will have jurisdiction.
2. Any bonafide measures taken in public interest, and to provide public safety or to prevent circulation of black money, cannot be objected as interference with the personal liberty or freedom of a citizen.

Headnote:Constitution of India,1950 – Article 226 – Appellant, a Computer Engineer, who was lucratively employed in United States of America for more than ten years, returned to India with his earnings and took up employment in Hyderabad in the year 2006 – He wanted to buy a property at Chennai – But his attempts were not fruitful-He was advised that if he wanted to buy a good plot, he must be ready to pay a considerable part of the sale price in cash as advance to the prospective seller – When the appellant ultimately identified a prospective seller, he wanted to go to Chennai with a large sum and finalise the deal – He contacted the Reserve Bank of India, ICICI Bank (his – Banker) and the Airport Authorities to find out whether he could carry. a large sum of money in cash 1 while traveling – He was informed that there was no prohibition – Thereafter he drew Rs.65 lakhs from his bank – He traveled by air from Hyderabad to Chennai, carrying the said cash – When the flight reached Chennai, some police officers and officers of Income Tax Investigation Wing rushed in, loudly called out the name of the appellant – Said officers seized the entire amount under a mahazar, gave him a receipt and permitted him to leave – In this process, he was detained for about 15 hours without any justifiable reason – To add insult to the injury, the Tax Intelligence Officers prematurely and hurriedly informed the newspapers, that they had made a big haul of Rs. 65 lakhs in cash, making· it appear as though the appellant was illegally and clandestinely carrying the said amount, and they had successfully – caught him while he was at it – Ultimately, two months later, after completing the investigation and verification, as nothing was found to be amiss or irregular, the seized money was returned to him, but without any interest – Writ Petition filed by appellant – Dismissed by High Court on the ground that no part of the cause of action arose within Andhra Pradesh – Appeal – In this case, the genesis for the entire episode of search, seizure and detention was the action of the security/intelligence officials at Hyderabad Airport in Andhra Pradesh who having inspected the cash carried by him, alerted their counterparts at the Chennai Airport that appellant was carrying a huge sum of money, and required to be intercepted and questioned – A part of the cause of action therefore clearly arose in Hyderabad – The consequential income tax proceedings against appellant , which he challenged in the writ petition, were also initiated at Hyderabad –Therefore, his writ petition ought not to have been rejected on the ground of want of jurisdiction – However held that when the bonafides of a passenger carrying an unusually large sum, and his claims regarding the source and legitimacy) have to be verified, some delay and inconvenience was inevitable – The inspecting and investigating officers have to make sure that the money was not intended for any illegal purpose – In such a situation, the rights of the passenger will have to yield to public interest – Actions of the officers of the investigation wing in detaining the appellant for questioning and verification, and seizing the cash carried by him, were bonafide and in the course of discharge of their official duties and did not furnish a cause of action for claiming any compensation – But the appellant’s grievance in regard to media being informed about incident even before completion of investigation, was justified – Appeal disposed of, treating the entire episode as closed – Appellant held not entitled to any further relief in the matter. (Paras 5, 9 to 16)

       Facts of the Case :

        Appellant, a Computer Engineer, who was lucratively employed in United States of America for more than ten years, returned to India with his earnings and took up employment in Hyderabad herein in the instant case. He wanted to buy a property at Chennai. But his attempts were not fruitful. He was advised that if he wanted to buy a good plot, he must be ready to pay a considerable part of the sale price in cash as advance to the prospective seller. When the appellant ultimately identified a prospective seller, he wanted to go to Chennai with a large sum and finalise the deal. He contacted the Reserve Bank of India, ICICI Bank (his – Banker) and the Airport Authorities to find out whether he could carry. a large sum of money in cash 1 while traveling. He was informed that there was no prohibition. Thereafter he drew Rs.65 lakhs from his bank. He traveled by air from Hyderabad to Chennai, carrying the said cash. When the flight reached Chennai, some police officers and officers of Income Tax Investigation Wing rushed in, loudly called out the name of the appellant.Said officers seized the entire amount under a mahazar, gave him a receipt and permitted him to leave. In this process, he was detained for about 15 hours without any justifiable reason. To add insult to the injury, the Tax Intelligence Officers prematurely and hurriedly informed the newspapers, that they had made a big haul of Rs. 65 lakhs in cash, making it appear as though the appellant was illegally and clandestinely carrying the said amount, and they had successfully caught him while he was at it. Ultimately, two months later, after completing the investigation and verification, as nothing was found to be amiss or irregular, the seized money was returned to him, but without any interest. Writ Petition filed by appellant was Dismissed by High Court on the ground that no part of the cause of action arose within Andhra Pradesh.

        2. Present Appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

        In this case, the genesis for the entire episode of search, seizure and detention was the action of the security/intelligence officials at Hyderabad Airport in Andhra Pradesh who having inspected the cash carried by him, alerted their counterparts at the Chennai Airport that appellant was carrying a huge sum of money, and required to be intercepted and questioned.A part of the cause of action therefore clearly arose in Hyderabad. The consequential income tax proceedings against appellant , which he challenged in the writ petition, were also initiated at Hyderabad. Therefore, his writ petition ought not to have been rejected on the ground of want of jurisdiction. However held that when the bonafides of a passenger carrying an unusually large sum, and his claims regarding the source and legitimacy) have to be verified, some delay and inconvenience was inevitable. The inspecting and investigating officers have to make sure that the money was not intended for any illegal purpose . In such a situation, the rights of the passenger will have to yield to public interest . Any bonafide measures taken in public interest, and to provide public safety or to prevent circulation of black money, cannot be objected as interference with the personal liberty or freedom of a citizen . Actions of the officers of the investigation wing in detaining the appellant for questioning and verification, and seizing the cash carried by him, were bonafide and in the course of discharge of their official duties and did not furnish a cause of action for claiming any compensation. But the appellant’s grievance in regard to media being informed about incident even before completion of investigation, was justified. There is a growing tendency among investigating officers (either police or other departments) to inform the media, even before the completion of investigation, that they have caught a criminal or an offender. Such crude attempts to claim credit for imaginary investigational breakthroughs should be curbed. Appeal disposed of, treating the entire episode as closed. Appellant held not entitled to any further relief in the matter.

       Result : Appeal disposed of.