Court orders return of seized assets to petitioners, criticizes respondent's refusal.

The High Court directed the respondent to release jewellery and cash to petitioners Nos. 1 and 2, as the assets were found to belong to them and were no longer required for the investigation focused on illegal gratification. The court criticized the respondent's refusal to return the assets, emphasizing that the income-tax authorities had the authority to release them under the Income-tax Act. The petition seeking a writ of mandamus for the release of seized assets was disposed of in favor of petitioners Nos. 1 and 2.

---

---

Issues:
Release of seized assets - Writ of mandamus sought by petitioners.

Analysis:
The petitioners filed a petition seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to release assets mentioned in an order dated February 16, 1993. The background of the case involves an FIR lodged against petitioner No. 3 under the Prevention of Corruption Act for accepting illegal gratification. Subsequently, a briefcase containing jewellery and cash was recovered from petitioner No. 3's residence. The Income-tax Department, upon being informed, issued a warrant of authorization under the Income-tax Act to take possession of the cash and jewellery. The Department later concluded that the assets belonged to petitioners Nos. 1 and 2.

The petitioners requested the respondent to return the jewellery and cash, which led to an order dated February 16, 1993, stating that the assets were no longer required as per the Assessing Officer's report. However, the respondent refused to return the assets, citing that they were impounded under section 132A and only the High Court could decide on the issue. The petitioners sought clarification through an application in a previous writ petition, and the court clarified that there was no stay on proceedings before the income-tax authorities, allowing the Commissioner to release the assets under section 132B(3) of the Income-tax Act.

The High Court noted that the investigation was focused on the alleged illegal gratification and not the jewellery and cash recovered. It criticized the respondent's reluctance to release the assets, especially since they had been explained by petitioners Nos. 1 and 2. Consequently, the court disposed of the petition, directing the respondent to pass appropriate orders within a week to release the jewellery and cash to petitioners Nos. 1 and 2.

---