The main legal point established in the judgment is the authority of an Assistant Director of Inspection as an Income Tax Authority and the need for proper interpretation of legal provisions in reaching a decision.

Bhagwati Prasad, J.-The present revision petition is filed by one of the first informant against the order of acquittal as passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 2/1982. According to the complainant the filing of revision petition was necessitated in the circumstances that the State Government has failed to file any appeal against the Judgment of acquittal.

2. According to the prosecution case the petitioner was holding the post of Inspector, (Income Tax). On 07.09.1981 he lodged a first information report at Police Station, Shastri Nagar. According to this report the first informant, alongwith one Shri G.C. Singhvi were to conduct a survey. This survey was authorised by the Assistant Director of Inspention (Intelligence), Jodhpur. For conducting the survey they proceeded to the business premises of Shri Om Prakash Chopra & Company. They reached the business premises at about 03.00 PM. When they entered, the owner of the shop was not

there. But at 04.15 PM Madan Lal came and then they entered the premises. They expressed their intention to conduct the survey. They showed their authorisation letter but Madanlal refused to cooperate and said that his uncle alone would sign the papers. They started the survey proceedings and they entered into the godown where they found a small white bag lying on the grain bags. The bag was taken out and in this bag it was found that there were two diaries and slip folded by a rubber band. They showed such transactions which were other than the transactions entered into the regular books. They took these diaries in their possession. While they were awaiting their higher authorities another Inspector Man Singh Mehta also arrived. Then came Shri Ram Chandra Rathi, and Shri Ram Lal Rathi of Rathi Gum Factory and they wanted to hush up the matter. Even an offer of illegal gratification was made which was refused by the Inspectors. Shri Champalal Salecha also came there and he wanted to hush up the matter with the complainant. Thereafter, the accused Harak Chand and Mohan Lal threatened the complainants, Sukh Ram Mutha came and he also wanted to hush up the matter. A good number of people collected there and in this process Nemi Chand and Bhuria, S/o Kishan Patwa and some other members surrounded the Inspector and held him and one of them threw a fist full of red chillies in his eyes and took away the brief case in which the diaries and slips were placed. The matter was referred to the higher authorities who were being awaited. The Inspectors were also given beating. Specific blows were attributed to Mohan Lal and Harak Chand. The bag was taken away from them. The prosecution was lodged. On the basis of the first information report, charge-sheet was filed. At the trial prosecution examined 16 witnesses and tendered documents in evidence. Charges were framed under Sections 395, 332, 353 and 120-B IPC.

3. The trial Court, after considering the case of the prosecution, came to the conclusion that Ex.P/1 the document authorising the complainant and Mr. Singhvi for survey was not a genuine document because the Assistant Director of Inspection was not authorised to sanction any such survey. Further it was observed that the name of Mr. Gandhi was inserted unauthorisidely without the consent of Mr. Nand Lal the signatory, Assistant Director of Inspection PW/8. Under Section 133-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’), while a survey is being conducted, no document can be seized and, therefore, the trial Court was of the opinion that offences under Sections 352 and 353 IPC are not made out.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the complainant asserted that the aforesaid findings of the trial Court were based on the misreading of the provisions of law and are not proper conceptualisation of the statutory provisions. The learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to Section 2(21), Section 116, Section 117 and Section 133-A of the