Seizure of property by income tax authorities from police custody is illegal if the seizure by the police is under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

B.S.Dhillon, J.

1. The petitioner is an income-tax and wealth-tax assessee under Central Circle-1, Ludhiana. One of his sons was studying in the Lawrence School, Sanawar (hereinafter referred to as "the School"). At the relevant time, i.e., in the year 1974, the petitioner came in contact with Shri M. V. Gore, Bursar of the School. Some time on 2nd October, 1974, the petitioner gave for safe custody to Shri Gore a suit case, a tin box and two hand bags, one of them being empty. These contained cash, ornaments, jewellery and some watches. The said articles were taken to Sanawar because the petitioner thought that in the conditions prevailing then, the articles would be safe with the said Bursar. Five weeks later, the petitioner went to Shri Gore for the return of the four articles which had been deposited with him. Shri Gore did not return the articles and the matter was discussed between the petitioner, Shri Gore and the Headmaster or the School. The Headmaster postponed the delivery of the articles to 15th November, 1974.

2. On 14th November, 1974, the Headmaster got into touch with the Superintendent of Police, Solan, and consequently, S.H.O., Solan, seized the above-mentioned articles from the Bursar of the School. On 22nd November, 1974, the petitioner received a communication from Shri Gore that the articles of luggage left by the petitioner have been seized by the police authorities on 15th November, 1974. The Superintendent of Police, Solan, got into touch with the Customs and Central Excise Department at Chandigarh and also with the Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala. On this information having been sent, respondent No. 2, Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala, issued a warrant of authorisation in the name of respondent No. 1 authorising him to once again seize the cash, silver utensils and other documents of the nature of hundis in the name of Shri Padam Kurnar Jain, son-in-law of the petitioner. Similar action was taken by the Superintendent of Customs. The articles seized by the police were divided into two lots. The ITO prepared a panchnama, copy of which is annex. P-2 with the writ petition, along with a list of articles taken into possession by him, copy annex. P-3 with the writ petition, whereas the Customs authorities took into possession articles which have been mentioned in annexs. P-4 and P-5, attached with the writ petition. In this petition, the petitioner has not claimed any relief qua the articles taken into possession by the Customs authorities but as regards the articles taken into possession by the income-tax authorities, relief has been claimed that the seizure by the income-tax authorities should be held to be without jurisdiction and the articles so seized by the income-tax authorities should be directed to be returned to S.H.O. Police Station, Solan, who be directed to proceed to take steps to obtain orders from a court of competent jurisdiction regarding the articles in question, in accordance with law.

3. In para. 8 of the return filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, it has been specifically averred that on 16th November, 1974, the Superintendent of Police, Solan District, informed respondent No. 2 that certain smuggled goods and objectionable articles left by the petitioner in the premises of the Lawrence School at Sanawar in suspicious circumstances, had been seized by the police which was holding 675 kgs. gold and gold ornaments, 14.520 kgs. silver utensils; unaccounted currency notes worth Rs. 36,880; hundis worth Rs. 90,000; two imported wireless sets (Walkie Talkie), wrist watches and saris, etc., for appropriate action. However, according to the respondents, the custody of the articles in question with the police at Solan was on behalf of the petitioner and, therefore, it has been contended that the seizure by the income-tax authorities was from the custody of the petitioner and was thus in accordance with law.

4. The learned counsel for the parties are agreed that in view o