Search and seizure cannot override prior police possession; non-incriminating seized articles should be returned when no longer needed.

A search and seizure warrant cannot be executed against property already in the lawful possession of the police; the decisive factor is possession at the time the warrant is executed, not at the time of earlier discovery. On that basis, the 13 high speed steel bars were treated as not lawfully taken by income-tax authorities and were to be returned to the Station House Officer for police proceedings. Wearing apparel seized during the raid, being non-incriminating and no longer needed, were liable to be returned to the assessees on application.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the income-tax authorities could lawfully take possession of the 13 high speed steel bars when they were already in the possession of the police; (ii) Whether the wearing apparel taken during the raid were liable to be returned to the assessees.

Issue (i): Whether the income-tax authorities could lawfully take possession of the 13 high speed steel bars when they were already in the possession of the police.

Analysis: The bars had been seized by the police in the course of investigation and taken to the police station before the income-tax warrant was executed. On the material before the Court, the police had not ceased to possess the bars at any stage before the income-tax authorities purported to take them. The crucial factor was the state of possession at the time of execution of the warrant, and the income-tax authorities could not validly act on property not in the assessees' possession.

Conclusion: The taking of possession by the income-tax authorities was not lawful, and the 13 bars were directed to be returned to the Station House Officer for police proceedings.

Issue (ii): Whether the wearing apparel taken during the raid were liable to be returned to the assessees.

Analysis: The wearing apparel were not incriminating articles, and the Revenue stated that on a proper application the authorities would return them. Since they had no continuing relevance to the seizure, retention was unwarranted.

Conclusion: The wearing apparel were directed to be returned to the assessees on application.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded in part, with relief granted in respect of the seized bars and the wearing apparel, while no further relief was awarded.

Ratio Decidendi: A search and seizure warrant cannot be validly executed against property that is already in lawful possession of another authority, and non-incriminating articles retained without need are liable to be returned.

---