The court emphasized that the belief formed by the authority authorizing the search must be based on relevant material and cannot be examined for sufficiency by the court. The court also highlighted that the power of search and seizure is a serious and drastic power, and the court's role is to ensure that the State's action is not arbitrary or unauthorized.

K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.—The petitioner-company challenges the search and seizure proceedings made under section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act", for short). The petitioner also challenges the prohibitory order as extended from time to time. It also seeks a mandamus to the respondents to furnish a copy of the order made under section 132(1) including the various search warrants. The company was formed in the year 1984, originally as a private limited company ; subsequently, it was converted into a public limited company with effect from November 21, 1988. It obtained a 100 per cent. export licence. Its object is to manufacture anti-cancer and anti-hypertension drugs to be extracted from herbal plants. In the first instance, the petitioner developed the lab technology and later a German company developed the production technology on the basis of a turnkey agreement with the petitioner. It is unnecessary to refer to the other details here. According to the petitioner, the company commenced its production on February 26, 1993, and exported the first consignment worth about Rs. 3.27 crores by the end of March, 1993. The petitioner has claimed exemption under section 10B(3) of the Act with effect from the assessment year 1993-94. According to the petitioner, in view of this exemption, it is not liable to pay any tax under the Act for a period of five years commencing from the assessment year 1993-94. In view of certain financial difficulties of the Registrar for Public Issues, the petitioner has started refunding the money received the share applications for which purpose a separate account has been opened with the bank. On August 17, 1993, the respondents conducted a search of all the three offices of the petitioner and the residences of the managing director and joint managing director of the company purporting to act under section 132 of the Act. The factory premises was also searched. The petitioner alleges that the officers of the Revenue have destroyed a portion of the precious imported glass plant of the petitioner-company. They have also destroyed some articles as referred to in the writ petition. The substance of the attack against the proceedings is that there was no material on which the authorising officer could have issued an authorisation under section 132(1) to the petitioner's case. Further, the order of authorisation in Form No. 45 was vague and issued jointly in the names of six persons. Several accounts of the petitioner-company were subjected to the prohibitory order under section 132(3). According to the petitioner, the persons in charge of the search were actually employed to collect the trade secrets or manufacturing process of the petitioner-company.

2. The writ petition was filed on November 18, 1993. Standing counsel for the respondents was directed to take notice on November 22, 1993. The matter was thereafter adjourned to December 6, 1993, and December 13, 1993, and, ultimately, the matter was taken up for hearing on December 15, 1993 and December 16, 1993.

3. It is necessary to note that rule was not issued and the matter was taken up for hearing at the preliminary hearing stage. This fact is necessary to be noted in connection with the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that no statement of objection is filed by the respondents and, therefore, the averments made in the writ petition as to the facts should be accepted as correct.

4. Sri Veerabhadrappa, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that : (i) the petitioner is entitled to know the basis for the formation of the belief under section 132(1) of the Act leading to the issuance of the search warrant ; (ii) the petitioner should be furnished with the copy of the search warrant ; (iii) copies of all the materials collected and the statements recorded also should be furnished to the petitioner.

5. Since the questions raised by the petitioner are settled by several decisions, let me proceed to state the relevan