Deputy Director Of Income Tax (Investigation), Ranchi v. The State Of Jharkhand Through Director General Of Police, Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (T) No. 3361 of 2015 Union of India through Mayank Mishra, Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Ranchi --- --- Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand through Director General of Police, Jharkhand 2.The Superintendent of Police, Ramgarh 3.The Officer-in-Charge, Gola Police Station, Ramgarh --- --- Respondents --- CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat ChoudharyThrough: Video Conferencing --- For the Petitioner: Ms. Amrita Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Piyuh Chitresh, A.C to A.G --- 20/ 13.10.2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Ms. Amrita Sinha and Mr. Piyush Chitresh, learned A.C to learned Advocate General representing the Respondent-State and its officials. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court for a direction or in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the Respondents specially Respondent No. 3 for handing over the assets seized by the police to the Income Tax Department, for which Warrant of Authorization has been issued under section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the Respondent No. 3 since he has refused to hand over the same. 3. Briefly stated, during the Lok Sabha Election 2014, Gola Police in a routine check, seized Rs. 36,99,800/- in total apart from 17 kg of Silver and 61.600 gms of Gold jewellery from the possession of two persons namely, Ravi Kumar and Sujit Kumar Soni on 28.03.2014 which led to institution of Gola P.S. Case No. 44/2014 corresponding to G.R. No. 1157/2014. Superintendent of Police, Ramgarh informed the Nodal Officer of Income Tax Department for Ramgarh Constituency about the incident in the evening of 28.03.2014. The Investigating Agency deposited the seized amount of cash, Gold and Silver in the Treasury, as per the direction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1[st] Class, Hazaribag. The accused Sujit Kumar filed a petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1[st] Class, Hazaribag for release of his share of the assets, which was rejected vide order dated 29.09.2014. The accused Sujit Kumar preferred revision vide Revision Case No. 174/2014 before the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Hazaribag in which an inquiry was conducted through the Income Tax Department by the orders of learned District and Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh. During revision proceeding, petitioner herein submitted his written submission for an appropriate direction to the competent authority to hand over the assets, as per the provisions of Section 132A of the Act of 1961 through letter No. 1592 dated 15.12.2014 (Annexure-2). The Revision petition was decided on 04.02.2015 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Hazaribag and it was rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Court however did not pass any direction, so far as handing over the seized items to the Income Tax Department for carrying on further inquiry in terms of Section 132A of 1961 Act is concerned. It is further stated on behalf of the petitioner that a survey operation was conducted under section 133A of the Act of 1961 in the business premises of Ravi Kumar on 16.01.2015. After statement on oath given by Ravi Kumar and Sujit Kumar Soni recorded under Section 131(1A) of the Income Tax Act, they were asked to disclose the source of their share of assets. However, they were unable to explain the source of assets and showed their readiness to pay taxes thereupon. Thereafter, Warrant of Authorization under section 132A of Income Tax Act was issued by the Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Patna in the name of Officer-in-Charge, Gola Police Station, Ramgarh (Annexure-7). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though, all these facts were brought to the notice of learned Additional District Judge-II, Hazaribag, but no direction was passed thereupon. Therefore, petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondents submits that the Investigating Agency has acted under the direction of the learned Trial Court and deposited the assets in the Treasury in the safe custody for being produced during trial as material exhibits and evidence. The Investigating Officer / Respondent No. 3 is bound by the orders of learned Trial Court in respect of the seizure made during course of police check. Petitioner has not resorted to appropriate remedy under law by moving the learned Trial Court. In those circumstances, Respondent No. 3 is unable to respond to the Warrant of Authorization issued under Section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Petitioner has straightaway approached this Court without exhausting the remedy provided under the Criminal Procedure Code. The instant petition is, therefore, fit to be dismissed. 6. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties in the light of relevant facts and materials on record. On the face of the pleadings on record, it appears that the petitioner has straightaway approached this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India without approaching the correct Forum / Court for relief prayed for. Petitioner has not approached the learned Trial Court in any proceeding as the seized assets are within the custody of the Court in connection with a criminal case i.e. Gola P.S. Case No. 44/2014 corresponding to G.R. No. 1157/2014 where it is required to be produced as material exhibits and evidence. We have also not been inforned about the stage of proceedings before the learned Trial Court since the writ petition was filed in 2015 itself. In those circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for leave to raise the issue in an appropriate proceeding before the appropriate Court. 7. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances and the discussion made herein above, it appears that the petitioner has not exhausted the alternative remedy. It is accordingly dismissed. However, petitioner is at the liberty to approach the appropriate Court in an appropriate procceding. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J) Ranjeet/ (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J)