Inherent criminal jurisdiction cannot quash police seizure or override income-tax custody proceedings where statutory remedies exist.

Police seizure of cash and silver under section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is treated as an independent exercise of police power based on suspicion of offence, and inherent jurisdiction under section 482 is not a substitute for statutory remedies already pursued before the Magistrate and revisional court. Where the seized property has been taken over by the Income-tax Department under sections 132 and 132A of the Income-tax Act and an order under section 132(5) is available for challenge under the fiscal statute, the criminal court has no occasion to direct disposal of the property. Special statutory remedies, not section 482, govern such proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the seizure of cash and silver by the police under section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of that Code; (ii) whether the handing over of the seized property to the Income-tax Department and the proceedings under the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be interfered with under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (i): whether the seizure of cash and silver by the police under section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of that Code.

Analysis: Section 102 empowers a police officer to seize property found under circumstances creating suspicion of the commission of an offence, and the power is exercised independently of the court. Where the complainants had already approached the Magistrate and the revisional court without success, the same grievance could not be reopened by invoking inherent jurisdiction. The proper course was to pursue the statutory remedies available under the criminal procedure law.

Conclusion: The seizure was not liable to be quashed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (ii): whether the handing over of the seized property to the Income-tax Department and the proceedings under the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be interfered with under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The property was no longer before the criminal court and had been taken by the Income-tax Department pursuant to warrant and proceedings under sections 132 and 132A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. An order had also been made under section 132(5), and the Act itself provided a remedy against such order. In that situation, the criminal court had no occasion to determine disposal of the property, and inherent jurisdiction could not be used to challenge proceedings governed by the special fiscal statute.

Conclusion: The handing over of the property and the income-tax proceedings were not open to interference under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Final Conclusion: The petition was held to be without merit because neither the police seizure nor the subsequent income-tax action furnished a basis for invoking the High Court's inherent criminal jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Inherent criminal jurisdiction cannot be used to quash a police seizure made on suspicion under section 102, or to interfere with custody and assessment-related proceedings governed by the Income-tax Act when the property is no longer in the criminal court's custody and the special statute provides its own remedy.

---