Crlp/12070/2011 Of Y.s.jagan Mohan Reddy v. Income Tax Department

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGOCRIMINAL PETITION Nos.12070 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner approached this Court with a prayer to set asidethe order passed by the learned Special Judge for CBI Cases,Hyderabad dated 23.11.2011 passed in Cr.M.P.Nos. 2035 of 2011 inR.C. No. 19(A) of 2011 whereby he directed the Central Bureau ofInvestigation, which is 1[st] respondent therein, to return the soft copiesof the documents seized from the petitioner to enable the Income TaxDepartment to complete the assessment of the petitioner hereinpertaining to the year 2011-2012. The brief facts of the case are as follows: During the course of investigation of the case registered againstthe petitioner by the 2[nd] respondent-Central Bureau of Investigation forthe offences under Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 467, 477-A IPC andSections 13(2) read with Section 1 (c) & (d) of Prevention of CorruptionAct, 1988. it seized number of documents from the petitioner and alsothe group of companies relating to the petitioner herein. On knowingthat some documents were seized by the 2[nd] respondent-CentralBureau of Investigation, the Income Tax Department-1[st] respondentherein requested the C.B.I. Officials by a letter dated 19.10.2011 for acopy of the said documents to enable them to proceed with theassessment of the petitioner herein. The 2[nd] respondent-CentralBureau of Investigation by way of reply informed the 1[st] respondent-Income Tax Department to obtain the copies from the Special Court since the seizure is reported to the Special Court. Accordingly, the 1[st]respondent-Income Tax Department preferred a Petition before theconcerned Court seeking a copy of the documents seized by the 2[nd]respondent herein. The learned Special Judge passed the orderdirecting the C.B.I. officials to hand over the soft copy of the documentssought for by the Income Tax Department, which is now underchallenge. Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearingfor the petitioner submitted that under the provisions of Section 457Cr.P.C. the documents or properties seized by the investigatingagency should be returned to the persons, who are entitled to it,whereas the learned Special Judge erroneously passed an order tohand over the documents to the 1[st] respondent herein. On perusal of the record, the learned Special Judge has notinvoked any provisions of law for passing an order directing the 2[nd]respondent herein to hand over the documents seized. The 1[st]respondent has also not filed any application by invoking anyprovisions of law. This Court is of the view that during the course ofinvestigation, the acts of different investigating agencies and theprocedures followed by the Courts are all complement to each other.The documents which are necessary for the assessment can bereceived by the 2[nd] respondent by invoking provisions under Section133(6) of the Income Tax Act which empowers the officials of the 1[st]respondent to file an application before any competent authority for acopy of the documents seized by the other investigating agency. In thepresent case, even though he has not preferred an application underSection 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, the 1[st] respondent has deemed to have filed a petition under Section 133(6). Further, reading ofprovision under Section 457 Cr.P.C. also, it is stated that thedocuments or the properties are to be returned to persons entitled to. to have filed a petition under Section 133(6). Further, reading ofprovision under Section 457 Cr.P.C. also, it is stated that thedocuments or the properties are to be returned to persons entitled to. Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel whileinterpreting the word “entitled” submits that it only means a person,who can have possession of the document. The word “entitlement” canbe interpreted “an authority entitled” to have the copy of the documentsfor the purpose of investigation. The word entitlement if properlyinterpreted. The Income Tax Department is also entitled to have a copyof the documents for the purpose of investigation. Further, the entirefacts of the case and the handing over of documents would in no waycause prejudice to the petitioner herein. Hence, this Court is notinclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned SpecialJudge. At the same time, if the grievance of the petitioner is that someirrelevant documents are also in possession of the Income TaxDepartment, which are not necessary for the purpose of assement ofthe Income Tax of the petitioner for the year 2010-2011, the same canbe returned to the petitioner herein. The learned Standing Counsel forthe Income Tax Department submitted that the soft copy alone washanded over to the department concerned and they are not having anyother copy of the documents and also submitted that the departmentwill rely only on the relevant documents for assessment of the incometax of the petitioner for the year 2011-12. It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for Income Taxdepartment that the soft copies of the documents were already handedover to the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel further submitsthat after perusal of the records they will proceed with as per theprovisions of the Income Tax Act. Recording his submission, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As far as the question of returning of document to the petitioneris concerned, this Court is of the view that since already the soft copiesof the documents were handed over to the petitioner as per the order ofthe trial Court, hence, the question of returning the documents to thepetitioner does not arise. With the above observations, the Criminal Petition isdismissed. 28[th] November, 2011CHV _______________ RAJA ELANGO, J.