SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1969 Supreme(Online)(Del) 5

DELHI HIGH COURT
S. N. Andley, J
S. Balwant Singh – Appellant
Versus
Director of Inspection (Investigation) – Respondent
Writ Petition



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Veda Vyasa
For the Respondents: Mr. Desai

The court upheld the legality of search and seizure under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, asserting that the 'reason to believe' standard is justiciable, but not the adequacy of those grounds.

Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 132 - Constitutional validity - Search and seizure conducted by Income Tax Officers upheld as legal; existence of 'reason to believe' justiciable but not subject to substantive judicial scrutiny - Safeguards of citizen's liberty acknowledged, but not absolute - J. Veda Vyasa argued against sufficiency of grounds for search. (Paras 4, 10, 12, 30, 32)

(B) Search and Seizure - The necessity of 'reason to believe' prior to search upheld, and stricter necessity for complete details on documents searched not mandated - General compliance with procedural safeguards such as requirement to keep documents for limited time considered - Judicial oversight of actions curtailed beyond assessment of good faith. (Paras 4, 7, 10, 12, 30, 32)

(C) Evidence - Use of information obtained through purported illegal search examined; admission into evidence allowed under certain conditions despite contention of statutory violations by petitioners. (Paras 30, 32)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged search and seizure conducted at their residence under Section 132 citing lack of proper grounds and questioning the intended purpose of documents seized. They claimed non-compliance with applicable rules and constitutional provisions.

Findings of Court:
The search was validated as proper under Section 132 in light of the assessment of the 'reason to believe' by the Director of Inspection, with the Court finding no compelling grounds to overturn search outcomes based on procedural failings.

Issues: Whether there existed sufficient grounds to justify the search and seizure under Section 132, whether the provisions complied with constitutional mandates of procedural due process, and the constitutionality of Section 132’s provisions in relation to individual rights.

Ratio Decidendi: Judicial scrutiny of the search and seizure actions must assess the bona fides of the 'reason to believe,' maintaining the principle that such administrative decisions should not be wholly subject to judicial second-guessing; hence the search was justified despite challenges about procedural thoroughness.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. legal basis for search and seizure (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. conditions regarding reason to believe for search (Para 4 , 5 , 11 , 14)
3. arguments regarding procedure and application of mind (Para 6 , 8 , 12 , 16)
4. relevance of seized documents and authorized search powers (Para 9 , 13 , 18 , 21)
5. analysis of constitutional compliance and justiciability (Para 22 , 23 , 27 , 29)
6. conclusions on the legality of search and use of evidence (Para 30 , 32)

1. It will not be an unfaithful summary of the history to say that for ages searches and seizure of documents and objects alleged to be incriminating have been responsible for many a battle at the bar. The safeguards of liberty of the subjects in this behalf have been forged out of conflicts between overzealous prosecutors on the one hand and not very nice people on the other. In preserving this liberty of the subjects the Courts always bear in mind that under our Constitution the concept of liberty is wider and the prisoner's dream of freedom from custody alone is not liberty. The present writ petition is directed against searches conducted on 10th August, 1966 at the residence of the petitioners at 35 Rajpur Road, Delhi, and other places occupied by the petitioners in connection with their business by a group of officers headed by Shri Rajendra Mohan, Income - tax Officer, respondent No. 2. The search was held in pursuance of the various authorizations issued by the Director of Inspection (Investigation) under S.132 of the Income - tax Act, 1961 , and R.112 (1) of the Income - tax Rules, 1962. It is sufficient to reproduce one of the authorisation forms signed by the Director of Inspection (Investigation) as all other forms are exactly in the same language: "
(See R.112) 
Warrant of Authorisation under S.132 of the and R.112 (1) of the Income - tax Rules, 1962.
The Income - tax Officers, S / Shri R. P. Gautam, P. K. Sharan, Rajendra Mohan, Govind Ram, S. N. Tandon, P. L. Madan, P. Ranganathan, R. R. Gupta, Miss S. Ghosh and Miss M. Sehgal, I. T. Os. Delhi.
Whereas information has been laid before me and on the consideration thereof, I have reason to believe that : -
If a summons under sub-section (1) of S.37 of the Indian Income - tax Act, 1922 or under sub-section (1) of S. 131 of the or a notice under sub-section (4) of S.22 of the Indian Income - tax Act, 1922 or under sub-section (1) of S.142 of the is issued to S. Balwant Singh to produce, or cause to be produced, books of account or other documents which will be useful for, or relevant to proceedings, under the Indian Income - tax Act, 1922 or under the , he would not produce, or cause to be produced such books of account or other documents as required by such summons or notice;
S. Balwant Singh is in possession of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing and such money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing represents either wholly or partly income or property which has not been disclosed for the purposes of the Indian Income - tax Act, 1922 or the :
And whereas I have reason to suspect that such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing have been kept and are to be found at the premises of S. Balwant Singh at Bawa House, 35, Rajpur Road, Delhi including outhouses, garages and other appurtenances thereto;
This is to authorise and require you as overleaf (name of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income - tax or the Income - tax Officer).
a. to enter and search the said premises;
b. to place identification marks on such books of account and documents as may be found in the course of the search and as you may consider relevant to or useful for the proceedings aforesaid and to make a list thereof together with particulars of the identification marks;
c. to examine such books of account and documents and make or cause to be made, copies or extracts from such books of account and documents;
d. to seize any such b















































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top