The court emphasized the need for a rational connection between the information and the belief entertained by the authorities in search and seizure proceedings, and upheld the validity of the search warrant based on the satisfaction note and the application of mind by the authorities.

R.V. Raveendran, J.—The appellant claims that he is a manufacturer of silver and gold articles carrying on business under the name and style of "Anitha Metal Works" and an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act", for short). He has maintained a locker bearing No. 139 having taken it on hire from Shaswathi Leasing Private Limited at B.V.K. Iyengar Road, Bangalore.

2. In pursuance of warrant issued under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in regard to the premises of Shaswathi Leasing Private Limited, a search was conducted on March 31, 1997, at the premises of the said Shaswathi Leasing Private Limited. It is stated that as the appellant was maintaining a locker, on request, he voluntarily opened the locker at the time of search conducted in the premises of Shaswathi Leasing Private Limited and the contents of the said locker were inventoried and sealed on March 31, 1997.

3. Thereafter, a search warrant under Section 132 of the Act was issued authorising search and seizure in regard to locker No. 139 maintained by the petitioner herein in the premises of Shaswathi Leasing Private Limited and in pursuance of the said warrant, the locker was again opened, searched, inventoried and sealed. The appellant is aggrieved.

4. According to him, the contents of the locker were inventoried on March 31, 1997, when the appellant voluntarily opened the said locker at the request of the Income Tax Department Officers and, therefore, there could not have been another search and seizure in regard to the contents of the locker by issue of a fresh warrant under Section 132 on April 1, 1997. It is also contended that the warrant issued on April 1, 1997, was also not in accordance with law as the earlier warrant enabled the search/seizure in regard to Shaswathi Leasing Private Limited and not that of the appellant. In the circumstances, the appellant filed W. P. No. 29272/97 for a declaration that the search of locker bearing No. 139 on March 31, 1997, was invalid and without jurisdiction. He also sought a further declaration that the search warrant dated April 1, 1997, was invalid and non est in law and a direction to the respondents to return all the seized materials and documents and treat the further proceedings emanating therefrom as being non est in law.

5. It is not disputed by the Department that on March 31, 1997, there was no search warrant in regard to the locker No. 139 of the appellant. However, the Revenue contends that while effecting search in pursuance of the warrant issued relating to Shaswathi Leasing Private Limited, the officers came across the locker and on the request of the officers, the petitioner voluntarily opened the locker and permitted inventory. It is, therefore, submitted that what was done on March 31, 1997, was not a search and seizure but an inventory of the articles which was done with the concurrence of the appellant. In fact, the inventory list makes it clear that there was no seizure of any article on March 31, 1997. It is not the case of the appellant that the officers of the Department forcibly opened the locker without any warrant for purposes of taking inventory and it is not disputed that the appellant himself voluntarily opened the locker to enable the inventory at the time of executing search warrant issued in regard to Shaswathi Leasing Private Limited. The first prayer for a declaration relating to inventory on March 31, 1997, is liable to be rejected.

6. In so far as the second prayer, the contention of the appellant is that the Department knew the contents of the locker as an inventory had been prepared on March 31, 1997, the search warrant is issued only where the location or identity of any movables is not evident or clear and a search is made to bring to light undisclosed income or assets ; and in this case as the entire contents of the locker had been inventoried on March 31, 1997, a warrant could not have been issued on April 1, 1997. Before examining this aspect it is r