TMI Blog1982 (4) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Commissioner having reason to believe that the assets represented undisclosed income, issued warrants of authorization under s. 132A of the I.T. Act (Form No. 45C) read with r. 112D of the I.T. Rules, 1962, in the name of the Station House Officer, G.R.P, Mughalsarai, appointing Sri S. N. Kapoor as the authorised officer and directing him to take possession and control of the assets. It appears that the S.H.O, G.R.P, Varanasi, did not deliver possession of the seized currency unless orders have been obtained from the court. On January 1, 1982, Sri Rajendra Kumar Pandey filed an application in the Court of judicial Magistrate (R), Varanasi, praying that the amount in question be released in his favour or in favour of the accused Vinod Kum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umar Pandey. Aggrieved thereby, the instant revision was filed by the Union of India. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also examined the affidavits and the impugned orders. Counsel for the Union of India has argued that having regard to the provisions of the I.T. Act the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to hand over the property in question to Rajendra Kumar Pandey and that an order should have been passed in favour of the authorised officer so that the inquiry under s. 132, I.T. Act may be conducted by the I.T. Dept. On the other hand, counsel for the opposite party has submitted that the order in question was within the jurisdiction of the judicial Magistrate and he was competent to hold tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 457, Cr. PC, refers to the procedure to be adopted by the police upon seizure of property. Admittedly, the seizure has been made by the G.R.P., Mughalsarai. Section 457, Cr. PC, runs as follows: " (1) Whenever the seizure of property by any police officer is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of this Code, and such property is not produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property .... .." There can be no doubt that even in respect of seizure under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thus clear that under this sub-section, the Requisitioning Officer would be the person entitled to the seized assets. The assets have been seized by an officer or authority which, in the instant case, is the SHO, G.R.P. He has refused to deliver possession of the assets without an order of the court. The Magistrate, therefore, should have directed the assets to be released in favour of the Requisitioning Officer. It was not his function in the circumstances of the case to have embarked upon an inquiry into the nature of the assets and the ownership of the same in summary way. That inquiry has to be conducted by the ITO under s. 132(5) of the I.T. Act, as already mentioned above. It appears from the record that the investigating agency has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
