JUDGMENT

V.G.O. Oak, C.J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against a search and seizure carried out u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as "the Act"). Jawahar Lal Rastogi is the petitioner. His father, Inder Prasad, carried on money-lending business with headquarters at Lucknow. Inder Prasad died in the year 1953. The petitioner became the karta of the Hindu undivided family. The petitioner continued his father's money-lending business. The petitioner is also a partner in a number of industrial concerns. The firms, Rohtas Financiers and Rohtas Pharmaceutical Distributors, have their head offices at Hazratganj, Lucknow, while Messrs. J. E. N. Engineering Corporation has its factory and office at Aishbagh, Lucknow. On September 14, 1964, the Income Tax Officer, A-Ward, Lucknow, directed the petitioner to furnish certain statements. The petitioner was required to furnish the necessary information within 10 days. On September 21, 1964, a number of Income Tax Officers raided the petitioner's residence and premises where the various industries are carried on. These officers searched for documents and goods kept at these places. The search was continued on September 22, 1964. The Income Tax Officers carried away with them documents found by them at these places. These officers also prepared inventories of ornaments and other goods kept at these places. The documents seized in September, 1964, remained with the Income Tax authorities till May, 1966, when the writ petition was filed. According to the petitioner, the search and seizure are illegal. He has, therefore, requested that these proceedings be quashed, and the opposite parties be directed to return to the petitioner the books and registers seized.

2. Search and seizure are admitted by the opposite parties. They conceded that they carried away a large number of documents from the petitioner's house and business premises. It is maintained that the search and seizure are legal.

3. The main contention of Mr. S.C. Khare appearing for the petitioner is. that the search and seizure were indiscriminate, and are not warranted by the provision of Section 132 of the Act. It is, therefore, necessary to ascertain the true scope of Section 132 of the Act. Section 132 was amended by Act No. 1 of 1965. Section 6 of the Amendment Act states:

"Any search of a building or place by ... Income Tax Officer purported to have been made in pursuance of Sub-section (1) of Section 132 of the principal Act before the commencement of this Act shall be deemed to have been made in accordance with the provisions of that sub-section as amended by this Act as if those provisions were in force on the day the search was made ..."

4. So, although the search in question was carried out in the year 1964,. the search and seizure are to be deemed to have been made u/s 132 of the Act as amended by Act No. 1 of 1965. It will, therefore, be sufficient to quote Section 132 of the Act as amended by Act No. 1 of 1965,

5. Section 132 of the Act states:

"(1) Where the Director of Inspection or the Commissioner, in consequence of information in his possession, has reason to believe that-

(a) any person to whom a summons under Sub-section (1) of Section 37 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or under Sub-section (1) of Section 132 of this Act, or a notice under Sub-section (4) of Section 22 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, or under Sub-section (1) of Section 142 of this Act was issued to produce, or cause to be produced, any books of account or other documents has omitted or failed to produce, or cause to be produced, such books of account, or other documents as required, by such summons or notice, or

(b) any person to whom a summons or notice as aforesaid has been or might be issued will not, or would not, produce or cause to be produced, any books of account or other documents which will be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under the Indian Income Tax