K,Rajesh V. The Union of India,

WP/36211/2012

AI Insights

In this case, the petitioner, K. Rajesh, filed a writ petition against the Union of India and other respondents, alleging unlawful detention and coercion by the tax authorities. The petitioner claimed that he was detained without reason, forced to sign blank papers, and coerced into making confessional statements under duress from influential persons associated with the ruling party. The court examined the legality of the actions taken by the tax authorities and the validity of the confessions obtained. The court ruled that while the authorities have the power to conduct searches and seizures, such actions must adhere to legal standards and any confessions must be made voluntarily.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 739600 (HC-HYDERABAD)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 05-11-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Article 21 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Keywords: Blank papers; Confessional statement; Detention; High-handedness; Interrogation; Seizure; Writ of Mandamus

Judgement Text

"THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR Writ Petition No.36211 of 2012 DATED:5.11.2013 Between: K. Rajesh, Kurnool. … Petitioner And The Union of India Represented by the Chief Commissioner, Income Tax Department, Hyderabad and others. ….Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR Writ Petition No. 36211 of 2012 Order: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief: “To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent in high handedly detaining right from morning to late nights and calling to his office without any rhyme or reason at all odd hours even after furnishing the records as directed by him through his letter dated 7.11.2012 after seizing the records and taking the signatures on blank papers under duress at the instance of the persons who were highly influential in the Ruling Party with whom there are litigations pending before various Courts, and directing to pay the amounts as written by him on the blank papers stating it to be the petitioner’s confessional statement before him without passing any orders in the said direction as being illegal, arbitrary and is in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and to forbear the respondents from taking any coercive measures in the light of the alleged confessional statements or in the alternative direct the 1st respondent to change the officer other than the 3rd respondent for conducting the enquiry in pursuance to the search made by the 2nd respondent on 7.11.2012 at the business premises of the petitioner, and pass such other order or orders may deem it fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” After going through the averments made in the writ petition and looking at the prayer, we are of the view that if the respondent-authorities want to conduct any search or seizure operations or want to investigate or interrogate, the same cannot be questioned. However, this power has to be exercised in accordance with the settled principles of law. Therefore, such seizure operations or for that matter, the interrogation can be done as per the established principles of law. Similarly, any confessional statement can be obtained provided the petitioner voluntarily does so. If he is not agreeable to make any confessional statement on his own, then he shall not be forced to do so. It is submitted that some confessional statement has been obtained and even some signatures on the blank papers have been collected and with the help of the same, some statement of admission or confession is recorded. This being the position, we are of the view that it would be open for the petitioner to take steps in accordance with law. The writ Court cannot decide the same. But, if this plea is taken before the appropriate authority, then obviously, the said Authority will consider the same and will take a decision in accordance with law. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand disposed of. No costs. _____________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 5.11.2013 PNB "