Letters Patent appeal barred in criminal jurisdiction, and no further direction was needed for return of seized gold ornaments.

Clause 15 of the Letters Patent does not permit an appeal against a judgment passed in exercise of criminal jurisdiction, and the Single Judge's order dealing with refusal to return seized gold ornaments under Section 452 CrPC was therefore not appealable. On the merits, where the petitioner had already been given liberty to seek return of the ornaments before the Department under the Income-tax Act and the Department was directed to consider that request, no further writ direction was warranted. The challenge based on Article 300A and Section 132 of the Income-tax Act did not justify additional interference, and the order of the Single Judge was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Letters Patent Appeal was maintainable against the order of the Single Judge passed in exercise of criminal jurisdiction. (ii) Whether any further direction for return of the seized gold ornaments was warranted when liberty had already been granted to approach the Department under the Income-tax Act.

Issue (i): Whether the Letters Patent Appeal was maintainable against the order of the Single Judge passed in exercise of criminal jurisdiction.

Analysis: The grievance in substance concerned refusal to return the seized gold ornaments in proceedings arising from the criminal court's handling of the matter under Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Single Judge had dismissed the petition while dealing with that criminal aspect. Clause 15 of the Letters Patent excludes an appeal from a judgment passed in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The Letters Patent Appeal was not maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether any further direction for return of the seized gold ornaments was warranted when liberty had already been granted to approach the Department under the Income-tax Act.

Analysis: The record showed that the seized ornaments had been retained during search proceedings and that the petitioner had already been given liberty to make an application before the Department for their return under the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with a direction to the Department to consider that request. In these circumstances, no additional direction was necessary. The challenge based on Article 300A of the Constitution of India and Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 did not justify interference.

Conclusion: No further relief for return of the gold ornaments was granted.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed both on maintainability and on merits, and the order of the Single Judge was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: An appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent does not lie against a judgment rendered in exercise of criminal jurisdiction, and where liberty has already been granted to seek relief before the competent Department, no further writ direction for return of seized property is warranted.

---