Judgment Intelligence
Petition Dismissed- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 26 April 1985
- Bench
- Justices D.A. Desai and V. Balakrishna Eradi
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 — Section 37; Code of Criminal Procedure — Section 165; Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 132A; Constitution of India — Article 226
The appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs (para 19).
Key holdings
- ‘Reason to believe’ under Section 37 is not subjective satisfaction; the belief must be held in good faith, and the court may examine whether the reasons are rationally connected to it (para 10).
- The material for the belief may be secret or come from informants, and the officer need not disclose it on a mere allegation that none existed (para 9).
- Section 37(2) applies Section 165 of the Code only so far as may be; the grounds of belief need not be stated in the search warrant, though a deviation must be justified if challenged (paras 11-12).
- Illegality of a search does not vitiate the evidence seized or require its return; the court must be cautious and circumspect in dealing with it (para 14).
- A search that turns up nothing incriminating is not for that reason illegal or mala fide (para 15).
Brief Facts
Court's Findings
Legal Principle
Precedents Relied Upon
- S. Narayanappa v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore [1967] 1 SCR 590
If there are in fact some reasonable grounds for the officer's belief, that gives jurisdiction; their adequacy is not for the court to investigate, though it may examine whether the reasons have a rational connection with the belief.
- Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Companies District I, Calcutta & Anr. 41 ITR 191
Action on a reason to believe is open to challenge to the limited extent of whether the reasons have a rational connection with the belief.
- R. S. Seth Gopikrishan Agarwal v. R. N. Sen, Assistant Collector of Customs & Ors. [1967] 2 SCR 340
Under Section 105 of the Customs Act the officer need not give reasons, but must produce evidence to sustain his belief if it is questioned; the grounds need not be stated in the authorisation.
View all precedents (10)
- H. L. Sibal v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Punjab & Ors. [1975] 101 ITR 112
Relied on by the appellant: failure to record the grounds of belief under Section 165(1) vitiates the search warrant and seizure; the Supreme Court did not accept that Section 165(1) is incorporated in Section 37.
- Commissioner of Commercial Taxes v. Ramkishan Shrikishan Jhaver [1966] ITR 664
Referred to as the Supreme Court decision on which H.L. Sibal relied.
- New Central Jute Mills Co. Ltd. v. T. N. Kaul & Ors. AIR 1976 Cal. 178
Held that documents seized in an illegal search must be returned; against the weight of judicial opinion and virtually overruled by Pooran Mal.
- Pooran Mal etc. v. Director of Inspection (Investigations) of Income Tax, Mayur Bhavan, New Delhi & Ors. [1974] 2 SCR 705
Courts in India and England have consistently refused to exclude relevant evidence merely because it was obtained by illegal search or seizure.
- Radhakishan v. State of U.P. [1963] Supp 1 S.C.R. 408
Assuming the search was illegal, the seizure of the articles is not vitiated; the court may only examine the seizure evidence carefully.
- State of Maharashtra v. Natwarlal Damodardas Soni (1980) 4 SCC 669 [as in the print's headnote; footnote printed as [1980] 4 S.E.C. 669]
Cited for the rule that an illegal search does not vitiate the seizure.
- Income Tax Officer, Special Investigating Circle B, Meerut v. M/s Seth Brothers & Ors. [1970] 1 S.C.R. 601
If some documents seized are found not useful or relevant, that does not by itself vitiate the search or show that the power was exercised mala fide.
