1975 (8) TMI 22

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed, M. K. Dhar, respondent No. 3, got into touch with J.S. Dulat, respondent No. 2, on the telephone. The petitioner has stated that Dhar told Dulat on that occasion on the telephone that not much jewellery had been found. Dulat ordered Dhar to seize all the things found from the premises of the petitioner as per instructions, and thereafter, at about 2-40 or 2-45 p.m., Dulat came to the residence of the petitioner without being authorised to enter the premises, and on being told about the relevant facts by the petitioner, he directed respondent No. 3 to seize the sum of Rs. 4,000 and the jewellery as per instructions, in spite of the petitioner's protest against the seizure. The grievance of the petitioner in this respect, mentioned in par....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ourt into confidence as to " the matters arising out of the search and seizure " on which he consulted Dulat or sought his instructions. These facts are so eloquent that the conclusion appears to us to be irresistible that the seizure was in fact effected by Dhar as a result of the consultation made with Dulat and after receiving instructions from him. Otherwise, there is no reason why the seizure could not be effected before Dulat's arrival. On the facts of this case, therefore, we are satisfied that the authorised officer did not apply his mind before seizing the cash and jewellery taken over by him and that in making the seizure under instructions from Dulat, he acted under extraneous orders. In H. L. Sibal v. Commissioner of Income-t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Sibal. After considering the information in H. L. Sibal's case [1975] 101 ITR 112 (Punj), we held in our aforesaid judgment that there was no information with the Commissioner of Income-tax on the basis of which he could form the belief requisite under clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) of section 132 of the Act for issuing the impugned search warrant of H. L. Sibal's premises, and on the basis of which the impugned search had been conducted in that case. Consequently, for the reasons recorded in that judgment, we hold that in the instant case also there was no such information with the Commissioner of Income-tax on the basis of which he could form the requisite belief. In view of our finding to the above effect about there being....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... dealt with by him in one bunch. The practice of issuing general warrants to arrest unspecified persons and to search property is said to have originated with the Court of Star Chamber. It was a powerful weapon to assist an embarrassed executive (to use the words of Wade and Phillips' Constitutional Law) to obtain material upon which to formulate charges against persons suspected of hostility towards the Government. At a later stage the practice was authorised by the Licensing Act, 1962, for use by a Secretary of State to prevent publication of unlicensed material, and such warrants continued after the lapse of that Act in 1695. The general warrant cases arose out of the attempt of George III's Government to stifle the political activities ....