TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1586X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thing contained therein which inhibits the use of illegally seized documents. The prohibition sought for cannot be granted - Petition dismissed. - W.P.No.31825 of 2015 & MP.Nos.1 & 2 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 15-11-2019 - DR. ANITA SUMANTH, J. For Petitioner : Mr. P. Prithvi Chopda for M/s. T. Pramodkumar Chopda For Respondents : Mr. Mohd. Shaffiq Special Government Pleader and Ms. G. Dhanamadhri Government Advocate ORDER The petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition against the Commercial Tax Officer, Enforcement (North), from formulating any proposal for the purpose of assessment/re-assessment by the 3rd respondent Assessing Officer based on an alleged unauthorised audit conducted at the petitioners' business bet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to Sections 132 and 132(A) of the Income Tax Act, that provided for the conduct of search and seizure and at para-25, the Court states as follows: '25.In that view, even assuming, as was done by the High Court, that the search and seizure were in contravention of the provisions of Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, still the material seized was liable to be used subject to law before the Income-tax authorities against the person from whose custody it was seized and, therefore, no Writ of Prohibition in restraint of such use could be granted. It must be, therefore, held that the High Court was right in dismissing the two writ petitions. The appeals must also fail and are dismissed with costs.' 5. In Rategain Travel Technolog ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tra vires or void it is actually upon the court declaring it to be so, that it is void (refer Gurdev Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1997). 5. Furthermore, the argument proceeds on the assumption that if material is procured in an illegitimate manner or a manner unauthorised by law, it is per se inadmissible. That rule prevails in United States where evidence or material procured illegally is inadmissible. However, in India that rule is inapplicable (K.R.Malkhani 1973); the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that so long as material is relevant, how it is sourced is immaterial and the courts would examine it provided it fulfils the test of relevance. In the circumstances, the argument that the materials on the basis of which the imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns. Referring to the provisions of the Evidence Act, the Court states that there is nothing contained therein which inhibits the use of illegally seized documents, and at paragraphs-3 and 4, states as follows: '3.But we find that there is no controversy before us on the question that the seizure of the documents was illegal. It is not also in controversy that since the seizure was illegal, the documents are bound to be returned to Purushothamlal Rungta. As a matter of fact, this court has ordered the originals to be returned, which has been carried out. That being the case, the grounds as raised by Mr. Venugopl for Rungta do not arise for consideration. But the precise question we are called upon to decide is as to the permissibilit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on documents from a party or a third party for purposes of making use of them. There is nothing in the Evidence Act which inhibits user of illegally seized documents ; nor the power of the court or the authority under the law to summon and make use of the documents is restricted to documents which have been seized lawfully. 4. It is true that the fundamental right of a citizen to property includes also illegally seized documents and their copies and that no property can be seized except under the authority of law. But neither of these rights really seems to impinge upon the basic rights under Article 19 and also Article 31 of the Constitution of India. The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the American Constitution have been looked ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seized. The High Court held that they were not and proceeded to pass the following identical order in the two cases. It is as follows : In this case all the documents seized in pursuance of the search warrant have been returned to the petitioners and the only question is whether the information gathered as a result of such search and seizure could be used in evidence if it be held that the search and seizure was illegal. In Balwant Singh v. Director of Inspection [1969] 71 I.T.R. 550, pronounced today, we have held that such information can be used. It is unnecessary, therefore, to pronounce upon the validity of the search and seizure. This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. Balwant Singh' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
