Court denies return of seized documents, allows future challenge on their nature.

The Court upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge, denying the prayer for the return of seized documents. The appeal was dismissed as the Court found it beyond the scope of the proceeding to determine whether the documents were originals or photocopies. However, the appellant was granted the right to raise this issue in future proceedings where relevant, allowing for further exploration of the nature of the documents.

---

---

Issues:
Prayer for return of seized documents declined by learned Single Judge.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, who refused to direct the first respondent to return the seized documents. During the hearing, both the counsel for the appellant and the Government Pleader representing the respondents presented their arguments. It was noted that in a previous hearing, an order was issued for the respondents to submit an affidavit regarding the documents in question. The affidavit filed by the respondents stated that only photocopies of the Day Book and Ledger were produced by the appellant. The appellant contested these claims in a reply affidavit. The main issue in the appeal revolved around determining whether the seized/produced documents were originals or photocopies. The Court acknowledged that resolving this factual dispute falls beyond the scope of a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution and agreed with the learned Single Judge's decision.

The Court clarified that while the appeal was disposed of due to the inability to resolve the controversy regarding the nature of the documents, the appellant retains the right to raise this issue in future proceedings where it is relevant. Therefore, the Writ Appeal was disposed of accordingly, allowing the appellant the opportunity to pursue the question of whether the original documents were indeed handed over in any future proceedings where such a contention is pertinent.

---