The possession of seized assets by the Police Officer cannot be deemed to be under the orders of the Court until an order is obtained under Section 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

N.K. Sud, J. - Challenge in this writ petition is to the action of the Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Ludhiana, the respondent No. 1, in issuing a notice under Section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) on 23.3.1998 requiring the S.H.O. Police Station City Phagwara, the respondent No. 8, to deliver the custody of the amount of Rs. 21,05,000/- seized from the petitioner by the respondent No. 8 on 21.3.1998. The petitioner has also challenged the consequential notice dated 20.7.1999 (Annexure P-3) issued under Section 158 BC of the Act by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Investigation Circle - II (1), Ludhiana, the respondent No. 2.

2. The relevant facts leading to the aforesaid action of the respondent No. 2 may first be noticed.

3. On 21.3.1998, the petitioner was driving a white Fiat Car No. PB-10-Q-8220 and was coming from Ludhiana side towards Phagwara. His car was checked at the Check Post set up for checking the vehicles at Hoshiarpur Chowk. During the search of his car two bags containing Indian currency notes amounting to Rs. 21,05,000/- were found. The petitioner was detained and the car and currency notes were also taken into custody for alleged offences under Section 411 and 414 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 9(i)(B) and 9(ii)(D) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1978. FIR No. 27 dated 21.3.1998 was lodged with the Police Station, Phagwara. On 23.3.1998 the police authorities applied to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for police remand of the petitioner for a week. On receipt of the information about this seizure the Income tax authorities recorded the statement of the petitioner on 23.3.1998 to enquire into the source of the currency notes worth Rs. 21,05,000/-. Not satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 issued a requisition under Section 132A of the Act on 23.3.1998 requiring the respondent No. 3 to deliver the currency notes to him, as according to him, the same represented income of property which had not been or would not have been disclosed for the purpose of the Act. The respondent No. 3 in pursuance to the said requisition delivered the currency notes to the respondent No. 1 on 24.3.1998. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 issued a notice under Section 158 BC of the Act dated 20.7.1999 (Annexure P-3) requiring the petitioner to prepare and file the return for the lock period 1.4.1987 to 23.3.1998. The petitioner filed the necessary return on 6.9.1999. The return was accompanied by a letter of the same date in which it had been mentioned that the notice was void as the block period mentioned in the same was 1.4.1987 to 23.3.1998 whereas it should have been from 1.4.1987 to 24.3.1998 as the proceedings for the block period, the petitioner filed a letter dated 13.10.1999 wherein the validity of the requisition under Section 132A of the Act and consequential notice under Section 158 BC of the Act was questioned on the ground that the Income-Tax authorities had no power to requisition the currency notes from the custody of S.H.O. Police Station City, Phagwara. For this purpose, the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in Tej Pal Oswal v. Income Tax Officer, Central Circle, Ludhiana, (1979)118 ITR 21. The respondent No. 2 did not agree with the petitioners objection and continued with the proceedings initiated vide the impugned notice dated 20.7.1999. It is in this background that the present writ petitioner challenging the notices under Sections 132A and 158BC of the Act dated 23.3.1998 and 20.7.1999 respectively, has been filed.

4. The sole question for our consideration, therefore, is whether the requisition made by the respondent No. 1 under Section 132A of the Act on 23.3.1998 is valid or not. It is agreed that our finding on this issue will also govern the validity of the notice under Section 158BC dated 20.7.1999 as the only ground for challenge to this notice is non-existence of a valid requisition under Section 13