TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1527X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 2009 - - - Dated:- 26-12-2017 - R. Subhash Reddy And Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ. Party-In-Person, Advocate for the Appellant Mr.Varun K.Patel, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER ( Per : Honourable Mr. Justice Vipul M. Pancholi ) 1. This appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against an oral order dated 04.10.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Criminal Application No.1328 of 2009, by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition. 2. Heard the appellant - original petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) Mr. Pinakin Chandulal Jaiswal in person and learned advocate Mr. Varun K. Patel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 3. The appellant original petitioner submitted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal vide order dated 31.01.2009. The petitioner, therefore, filed the captioned Special Criminal Application No.1328 of 2009 before this Court. Learned Single Judge by the impugned order dismissed the said petition. 4. It is contended that the petitioner is having constitutional right to have a property and therefore the learned Single Judge ought to have directed the respondent Department to return the gold ornaments. It is submitted that the petition which was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before this Court was not only based on Section 452 Cr.PC but also covered Right to Property under the Constitution of India. The appellant petitioner thereafter relied upon Section 132 of the Income Tax Act which empowers t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed Single Judge has dismissed the said petition, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, this LPA would not be maintainable as the learned Single Judge has exercised the criminal jurisdiction. 7. Learned advocate Mr.Patel thereafter submitted that even on merits also, the Courts below have not committed any error while not entertaining the request of the petitioner to return the gold ornaments seized by the respondent Department on the ground that the said gold ornaments are not Muddamal . It is further pointed out that the learned advocate who has appeared before the learned Single Judge has restricted his submission qua prayer A only for the purpose of return of the gold ornaments. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge has granted liber ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est by the Court below with regard to return of the gold ornaments while exercising powers under Section 452 of Cr.PC. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner observed that in view of the concurrent findings given by the Courts below, no case is made out for interference in the said application and therefore the application deserves to be dismissed. Thus, the learned Single Judge has exercised criminal jurisdiction and therefore as per Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the present Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable. Clause 15 of the Letters Patent provides as under: 15. Appeal from the Courts of original jurisdiction to the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction.- And We do further ordain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inafter provided. 9. At this stage, it is required to be noted that though the petitioner had prayed for different reliefs in the petition, the petitioner has restricted his argument qua prayer No. A only. As the petitioner has made submission on merits, we deem it appropriate to consider his submission on merits also. It is the case of the petitioner that Section 132 of the Income Tax Act empowers the Income Tax Officer to seize only undisclosed wealth or income, whereas, in the present case, the respondents have seized gold ornaments in question which were declared in W.T. Returns of 1972-73 in 1974. With regard to the said submission, it is required to be noted that the learned Single Judge has granted liberty to the petitioner to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
