Unlawful police seizure and improper tax requisition of property violated Article 21 and court control over seized assets.

Unlawful police search and seizure that involved altered records, interpolated seizure documents, and intrusive entry into the petitioners' home was held to violate the right to life, privacy, and dignity under Article 21; relief followed for the constitutional breach. The Court also held that Income-tax authorities could not invoke Section 132A to take custody of property already seized by police before the Magistrate dealt with it, because such property remained under criminal court control and could not be requisitioned from police custody in that manner. The consequential proceedings were quashed, release of the seized properties was directed, and public law compensation was awarded.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the search and seizure at the petitioners' premises were unlawfully conducted so as to violate the petitioners' fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India; (ii) Whether the Income-tax authorities could lawfully invoke Section 132A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and obtain custody of the properties allegedly seized by the police before the Magistrate dealt with the property.

Issue (i): Whether the search and seizure at the petitioners' premises were unlawfully conducted so as to violate the petitioners' fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The materials, including the independent report obtained by the Court and the surrounding circumstances, established that the police action at the petitioners' house commenced on 4 February 1996 and that the records were manipulated to project a different date. The seizure list itself contained interpolations, the police version was found unreliable, and the petitioners were subjected to an intrusive and unlawful intrusion into their home and possessions. The conduct of the officials was contrary to law and offended the petitioners' right to life and dignity protected by Article 21.

Conclusion: The issue is answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.

Issue (ii): Whether the Income-tax authorities could lawfully invoke Section 132A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and obtain custody of the properties allegedly seized by the police before the Magistrate dealt with the property.

Analysis: Property seized by the police in connection with an alleged offence remains subject to the criminal court's control, and the police were bound to produce it before the Magistrate or act under the Magistrate's orders. Section 132A did not authorise the Income-tax authorities to requisition or take delivery from police custody in these circumstances, because the court is not an officer or authority under any other law for the purposes of that provision. The intervention of the revenue authorities therefore bypassed the court and was without authority of law.

Conclusion: The issue is answered in favour of the petitioners and against the revenue authorities.

Final Conclusion: The Court held that the petitioners were subjected to illegal police action and that the subsequent assumption of custody by the Income-tax authorities was unauthorised, warranting release of the seized properties, quashing of the consequential proceedings, and award of compensation.

Ratio Decidendi: Property seized by the police in the course of a criminal investigation remains under the control of the criminal court, and any unlawful search, seizure, or manipulation of records that invades the privacy and dignity of a person attracts constitutional relief, including public law compensation.

---