Search and seizure under section 132 requires statutory satisfaction; disputed mala fides cannot be decided on affidavits alone.

Search and seizure under section 132 depends on the Commissioner or Director of Inspection having information and reason to believe that statutory conditions are met, and the power must be used only for authorised purposes. A general warrant to search for books and documents relevant to proceedings is valid, and seizure of many documents, including some later found irrelevant, does not by itself prove mala fides or a collateral purpose. The record did not show that the authorization was issued at the behest of the Directorate of Inspection, so the finding of mala fide exercise of power was set aside. Where a writ raises serious disputed facts, the High Court should not ordinarily resolve them on affidavits alone without viva voce evidence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the authorization for search and seizure under section 132 was vitiated as mala fide or for a collateral purpose, and whether the High Court was justified in quashing the proceedings on the basis of affidavits alone.

Analysis: The power under section 132 is conditioned on the Commissioner or Director of Inspection having information and reason to believe that the statutory requirements exist, and the power must be exercised strictly for the purposes authorised by law. A general authorization to search for books and documents relevant to proceedings is permissible, and mere seizure of a large number of documents, including some later found to be irrelevant, does not by itself establish mala fides or invalidate the search. The record did not support the finding that the authorization was issued at the behest of the Directorate of Inspection, and the officers' affidavits asserted bona fide exercise of power. The Court also held that, where serious disputed questions of fact are raised in a writ petition, the High Court should not ordinarily decide them on affidavits alone without viva voce evidence.

Conclusion: The finding of mala fide exercise of power was set aside, and the search and seizure action was not held invalid on the grounds accepted by the High Court.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings challenging search and seizure under section 132, the Court will not interfere merely because a number of documents were seized or some were arguably irrelevant; interference is warranted only where absence of statutory satisfaction, mala fides, or collateral purpose is established, and disputed facts ordinarily require proper evidentiary inquiry.

---