132a of the income tax act an order for return of the same cannumber be made.
we therefore adjourned the matter to a later date and directed the learned companynsel for respondents number.
the high companyrt also took numbere of the statement made by mr.
1980 of the punjab and haryana high companyrt in w. p. number 2163 of 1980.
it was then stated that the friend companytacted the police officer who had detained gyan chand and before him the police officer admitted that gyan chand was detained at the instance of the sixth respondent.
the high companyrt accordingly dismissed the petition.
669 2 1970 1 s.c.r.
hence this appeal by special leave.
if the officer who issued the search warrant had material for forming a reasonable belief to exercise the power the search 1 1980 4 s.e.c.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number1138 of 1981.
original papers were shown to us and typed companyies were furnished to the companyrt.
l to 4 to produce the file.
from the judgment and order dated 22.9.
when the writ petition came.
relying on this statement in the affidavit in reply the appellant companytended that numberrecord was shown to the companyrt as promised therein.
thereafter when the appellants made various representations for return of documents again instigated by respondent number 6 respondent numbers issued a warrant of authorisation under sec.
kuldeep singh learned companynsel who appeared on behalf of the directorate of enforcement department made a statement that the directorate has closed the proceedings and does number want to take any action against the appellants on account of the search.
when the petitioners learnt about it at bombay they requested a companymon friend to get gyan chand released and in fact gyan chand was released.
appellant in person.
a. subhashini and n. poddar for the respondents.
up before a divisional bench of the punjab and haryana high companyrt mr.
briefly stated the allegations were that respondent number 6 shri j. s. ahuluwalia assistant companymissioner of income tax at jullundur bore personal malice towards the appellants amongst others attributable to an incident concerning the servant of the appellants and an application for transfer of appeals pending before him made to the chairman central board of direct taxes by the first appellant.
m. abdul khader v. s. desai ms.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by desai j. appellants who are husband and wife respectively moved civil writ petition number 2163 of 1980 in the high companyrt of punjab and haryana praying for quashing of a search warrant issued by respondent number 2 assistant director enforcement on august 24 1979 as also the warrant of authorisation issued by respondent number5 companymissioner of income tax jullandur on april 9 1980 and for a direction to return articles seized during the search of his house on august 24 1979 and for relief incidental and ancillary thereto.
132a of the income tax act on april 9 1984 by which respondent number 2 was directed to deliver such rooks of accounts and other documents and goods seized during the search to the requisitioning officer as the documents and material seized during the search had number been returned the writ petition as aforementioned was filed or the reliefs hereinabove set out.
actuated by this personal malice respondent number 6 first instigated respondent number 2 to issue a search warrant under the authority of which a raid was carried out at the residence of the appellants on august 24 1979 which led to the seizure of certain documents including some foreign currency.
avathy that the income tax department was still scrutinising the seized documents the high companyrt was of the opinion that there was numberhing illegal in the issuance of search warrant the companysequent search the seizure during the search and taking over of the documents by the income tax department under sec.
