A requisition under Section 132A of the Income-tax Act cannot be issued to a court.

S.D.Agarwala, J.

1. This letters patent appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single judge, dated December 20, 1983 (see [1984] 146 ITR 266).

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are briefly as follows :

3. On September 6, 1977, a raid was conducted at the house of Balbir Singh, who was the petitioner in the writ petition and has now died and his heirs have been brought on record as respondents Nos. 1 to 6 (accused). The raid was conducted on the basis of the First Information Report No. 242, dated September 5, 1977, under Section 411, Indian Penal Code. This First Information Report was got registered by the Assistant Sub-Inspector, Sheonath, at Police Station, Bahadurgarh, on the allegation that Balbir Singh, the petitioner, in the present case and two others had amassed wealth by organising thefts at far away places and they were habitual receivers of stolen property.

4. On the search having been conducted on September 6, 1977, police recovered currency notes of the value of Rs. 2,99,000 from the house of Balbir Singh. The police took into possession this money and this money was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak, in connection with the First Information Report referred to above under Section 411, Indian Penal Code. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, on September 7, 1977, ordered that the case property, namely, currency notes of Rs. 2,99,000, be deposited in the treasury at Rohtak for safe custody. The effect of these proceedings was that property worth Rs. 2,99,000 in cash came into the custody of the court.

5. Thereafter, Balbir Singh moved an application under Sections 451/ 457 of the Code for return of this money. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak, vide his order dated October 15, 1977, directed the police to hand over the money abovementioned in sapurdgi to Balbir Singh. The custody of the money continued to remain with the court, but the money was directed to be released to Balbir Singh treating him to be a sapurdar of the said money.

6. When Balbir Singh went to collect the money from the Treasury Officer, he was informed that the Senior Superintendent of Police, Rohtak, had received a requisition from the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 132A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, that the money may not be released to Balbir Singh, but may be released to the Officers of the Income-tax Department as the requisition had been issued under Section 132A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In consequence of the requisition issued by the income-tax authorities, the Treasury Officer did not release the money to the petitioner in spite of the directions issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak. The petitioner consequently filed the present Writ Petition No. 3583 of 1977 (see [1984] 146 ITR 266), in this court seeking the relief of quashing the directions issued by the income-tax authorities under Section 132A of the Income-tax Act. The writ petition came up for hearing before the learned single judge who has allowed the writ petition and quashed the requisition issued by the income-tax authorities. It is against this decision dated December 20, 1983 (see [1984] 146 ITR 266), that the present letters patent appeal has been filed by the Income-tax Department.

7. Learned senior standing counsel for the Income-tax Department has urged that the view taken by the learned single judge that a requisition could not be issued in respect of the assets which are in the custody of the court under Section 132A of the Act is erroneous in law and, consequently, the judgment of the learned single judge is liable to be set aside.

8. The relevant portion of Section 132A of the Income-tax Act which was applicable to the case is quoted below :

" 132A. Power to requisition boohs of account, etc.--(1) Where the Director of Inspection or the Commissioner, in consequence of information in his possession, has reason to believe that-- .... (c) any assets represent either wholly or partly income or p