1985 (4) TMI 1 - SC - Income Tax

Court upholds search warrant legality, dismisses malice claims. Good faith stressed in warrant issuance. Seized documents retained.

Dr. Partap Singh And Another Versus Director of Enforcement And Others

Dr. Partap Singh And Another Versus Director of Enforcement And Others - [1985] 155 ITR 166 (SC) Issues Involved:1. Legality of the Search Warrant Issued by Respondent No. 22. Allegations of Personal Malice by Respondent No. 63. Obligation to Record Grounds for Belief Before Issuing a Search Warrant4. Return of Seized Documents Due to Alleged Illegality of Search5. Alleged Tampering with Seized DocumentsDetailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Search Warrant Issued by Respondent No. 2The appellants challenged the legality of the search warrant issued by Respondent No. 2 (Assistant Director, Enforcement) on the grounds that there was no material before him to entertain a reasonable belief that documents useful for investigation under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, were secreted in the appellants' house. The court found that Respondent No. 2, a responsible officer, had issued the search warrant after being fully satisfied based on information available in the official record and information collected by the Enforcement Directorate. The court examined the original records and was fully satisfied that there was material before Respondent No. 2 to justify the issuance of the search warrant.2. Allegations of Personal Malice by Respondent No. 6The appellants alleged that Respondent No. 6 (Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax) bore personal malice towards them and instigated Respondent No. 2 to issue the search warrant. The court found no substance in this allegation. The allegations of malafides were deemed scanty and vague. The court noted that the affidavit of the servant involved in the alleged incident was not produced, and the names of the friend and the police officer were not disclosed, making the allegations unsubstantiated and imaginary.3. Obligation to Record Grounds for Belief Before Issuing a Search WarrantThe appellants contended that the officer issuing the search warrant must disclose the material on which the reasonable belief was based. The court held that it is not obligatory for the officer to disclose his material on the mere allegation that there was no material before him. The expression 'reason to believe' is not synonymous with the subjective satisfaction of the officer and must be held in good faith. The court found that the grounds for the belief had a rational connection to the formation of the belief and were not extraneous or irrelevant. The court also clarified that the methodology prescribed for carrying out a search under Section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be generally followed, but deviations are permissible if justified.4. Return of Seized Documents Due to Alleged Illegality of SearchThe appellants argued that if the search was illegal, the seized documents should be returned. The court referred to the Constitution Bench decision in Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection (Investigation) of Income-tax, which held that relevant evidence obtained by illegal search or seizure should not be excluded. The court concluded that the illegality of the search does not vitiate the evidence collected during such search. The court emphasized that the authority before which such evidence is placed must be cautious in dealing with it. The court found no merit in the contention that the search was illegal and, therefore, no case was made out for directing the return of the documents.5. Alleged Tampering with Seized DocumentsThe appellants alleged that there had been tampering with the documents by the officers of the Enforcement Directorate. The court examined the documents and found no evidence of tampering. The court accepted the explanation provided by the respondents regarding the passbook and account numbers and found the appellants' submission to be misconceived and imaginary. The court concluded that there was no merit in the contention that there had been tampering with the documents.Conclusion:The court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in any of the contentions raised by the appellants. The search warrant issued by Respondent No. 2 was deemed legal, the allegations of personal malice by Respondent No. 6 were found to be unsubstantiated, and the obligation to record grounds for belief before issuing a search warrant was clarified. The court also held that the illegality of the search does not necessitate the return of seized documents, and there was no evidence of tampering with the seized documents. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.