Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, Senior Counsel V. Central Bureau of Investigation and Income Tax Department

CRLP/12073/2011

AI Insights

The case revolves around a petition challenging the order of the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, which directed the CBI to return soft copies of documents seized from the petitioner to the Income Tax Department. The documents were initially seized during an investigation into various offenses under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Income Tax Department requested these documents to complete the assessment for the year 2011-2012. The petitioner contested the order, arguing that it was not supported by any legal provisions under Cr.P.C. or the Income Tax Act. However, the court upheld the order, emphasizing the complementary roles of different investigating agencies and the legal entitlement of the Income Tax Department to the documents for assessment purposes.

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 796441 (HC-HYDERABAD)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Cr.P.C., Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: C REDDY
• Keywords: Assessment; CBI; Document seizure; Income Tax; Soft copy; Special Judge
• Section: 133(6); 13(2); 1(c); 457; 409; 120-B; 120-B; 420; 467; 1(d); 477-A

Judgement Text

"THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.12073 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner approached this Court with a prayer to set aside the order passed by the learned Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad dated 23.11.2011 passed in Cr.M.P.Nos. 2066 of 2011 in R.C. No. 19(A) of 2011 whereby he directed the Central Bureau of Investigation, which is 1st respondent therein, to return the soft copies of the documents seized from the petitioner to enable the Income Tax Department to complete the assessment of the petitioner herein pertaining to the year 2011-2012. The brief facts of the case are as follows: During the course of investigation of the case registered against the petitioner by the 2nd respondent-Central Bureau of Investigation for the offences under Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 467, 477-A IPC and Sections 13(2) read with Section 1 (c) & (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. it seized number of documents from the petitioner and also the group of companies relating to the petitioner herein. On knowing that some documents were seized by the 2nd respondent-Central Bureau of Investigation, the Income Tax Department-1st respondent herein requested the C.B.I. Officials by a letter dated 19.10.2011 for a copy of the said documents to enable them to proceed with the assessment of the petitioner herein. The 2nd respondent-Central Bureau of Investigation by way of reply informed the 1st respondent- Income Tax Department to obtain the copies from the Special Court since the seizure is reported to the Special Court. Accordingly, the 1st respondent-Income Tax Department preferred a Petition before the concerned Court seeking a copy of the documents seized by the 2nd respondent herein. The learned Special Judge passed the order directing the C.B.I. officials to hand over the soft copy of the documents sought for by the Income Tax Department, which is now under challenge. Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that under the provisions of Section 457 Cr.P.C. the documents or properties seized by the investigating agency should be returned to the persons, who are entitled to it, whereas the learned Special Judge erroneously passed an order to hand over the documents to the 1st respondent herein. On perusal of the record, the learned Special Judge has not invoked any provisions of law for passing an order directing the 2nd respondent herein to hand over the documents seized. The 1st respondent has also not filed any application by invoking any provisions of law. This Court is of the view that during the course of investigation, the acts of different investigating agencies and the procedures followed by the Courts are all complement to each other. The documents which are necessary for the assessment can be received by the 2nd respondent by invoking provisions under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act which empowers the officials of the 1st respondent to file an application before any competent authority for a copy of the documents seized by the other investigating agency. In the present case, even though he has not preferred an application under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, the 1st respondent has deemed to have filed a petition under Section 133(6). Further, reading of provision under Section 457 Cr.P.C. also, it is stated that the documents or the properties are to be returned to persons entitled to. Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel while interpreting the word “entitled” submits that it only means a person, who can have possession of the document. The word “entitlement” can be interpreted “an authority entitled” to have the copy of the documents for the purpose of investigation. The word entitlement if properly interpreted. The Income Tax Department is also entitled to have a copy of the documents for the purpose of investigation. Further, the entire facts of the case and the handing over of documents would in no way cause prejudice to the petitioner herein. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Special Judge. At the same time, if the grievance of the petitioner is that some irrelevant documents are also in possession of the Income Tax Department, which are not necessary for the purpose of assement of the Income Tax of the petitioner for the year 2010-2011, the same can be returned to the petitioner herein. The learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department submitted that the soft copy alone was handed over to the department concerned and they are not having any other copy of the documents and also submitted that the department will rely only on the relevant documents for assessment of the income tax of the petitioner for the year 2011-12. It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for Income Tax department that the soft copies of the documents were already handed over to the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel further submits that after perusal of the records they will proceed with as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act. Recording his submission, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As far as the question of returning of document to the petitioner is concerned, this Court is of the view that since already the soft copies of the documents were handed over to the petitioner as per the order of the trial Court, hence, the question of returning the documents to the petitioner does not arise. With the above observations, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________ RAJA ELANGO, J. 28th November, 2011 CHV "