AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Om Prakash, J.—Petitioners by this petition seek a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to release the assets mentioned in an order dated 16-2-1993 (Annexure ''1'' to the writ petition). The facts, in brief, are that on 20-9-1990, a first information report was lodged at Police Station, Nauchandi, District Meerut (registered as Crime No. 411 of 1990) u/s 7 /13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against Petitioner No. 3 with the allegation that the said petitioner had accepted an amount of Rs. 10,000 as illegal gratification.
In an order dated 18-3-1993 (Annexure ''2'' to the writ petition), this Court said:
The said amount of Rs. 10,000 is the subject-matter of the above-mentioned crime, viz., Crime No. 411 of 1990....
On 20-9-1990, a brief case containing jewellery and cash was also recovered from the residence of Petitioner No. 3. The same was deposited at Police Station, Nauchandi, Meerut. The Vigilance Department informed the income tax authorities about the contents of the brief case. Thereafter, the Commissioner, Meerut, issued a warrant of authorisation u/s 132A of the income tax Act, 1961 (''the Act'') requiring the Station Officer to deliver the said cash and jewellery to the income tax Department. Having taken possession of the said jewellery and cash, the income tax Department proceeded to make enquiry into the matter and eventually concluded that the cash and jewellery belonged to Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2.
Then, the petitioners approached the respondent to deliver the jewellery and cash back to them. On their request, the respondent passed order dated 16-2-1993 (Annexure ''1'' to the writ petition) informing the petitioner that the cash of Rs. 3,84,000 and jewellery worth Rs. 1,45,355 seized ''is no longer required at this end, as the relevant assessments have been completed and no demand is outstanding as reported by the Assessing Officer''.
However, the respondent refused to deliver the cash and jewellery to the petitioners saying:
... these said assets cannot be returned to you, as it was impounded u/s 132A from Nauchandi Police Station, Meerut... that the seized assets are the property of the investigation No. Sa. Ae Anu-2-99/90 and only Allahabad High Court is competent to decide the issue of property as the enquiry/investigation has been stayed by the Allahabad High Court in this case.
By the said order, the respondent asked the petitioners to obtain an order from the Allahabad High Court to enable him to take further action in the case.
It is now Petitioner No. 3 who made an application seeking clarification in Writ Petition No. 20555 of 1992, filed earlier in this Court, and then this Court by order dated 18-3-1993 clarified:
Thus, there is no stay in respect of any proceedings before the income tax authorities and the release of the assets by the income tax Commissioner has not been stayed. Hence, the Commissioner, income tax, is not fettered from releasing the assets in favour of the petitioner as the stay order does not come in the way of such release to the petitioner u/s 132B(3) of the income tax Act. The stay order is clarified to this extent and in view of the above no further orders are required to be passed by the High Court.
It is note-worthy that the said Writ Petition No. 20555 of 1992 was filed against the State of U.P. through the Secretary, Vigilance, Government of U.P., Lucknow, which has not pursued the order dated 18-3-1993 in any proceedings. From the facts as stated by this Court in order dated 18-3-993, it is manifest that the subject-matter of investigation in Crime No. 411 of 1990 is the alleged illegal gratification of Rs. 10,000 and not the jewellery and cash recovered from the brief case and, therefore, the respondent is not right in saying vide order dated 16-2-1993 (Annexure ''1'' to the writ petition) that the seized assets, namely, jewellery and cash, are the property of the investigation No. Sa Ae Anu-2-99 of 1990.
After the order of the High Court dated 18-3-1993, the petitioners made applications to the respondent praying that the seized assets be released, which are said to be still pending.
Cash and jewellery not being the subject-matter of investigation in Crime No. 411 of 1990, there being no objection/claim from any other authority/person and the respondent having found that the seized jewellery and cash have been fully explained in the hands of Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, we see no justification for the hesitation on the part of the respondent to pass appropriate orders on the aforesaid applications of the petitioners to release the said assets in favour of Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. For the reasons, the petition is disposed of finally directing the respondent to pass appropriate order on the aforesaid applications of the petitioners to release the jewellery and cash within one week from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him by the petitioners.