N.K.SUD,J. - (1.)A challenge in this writ petition is to the action of the Director of IT (Inv.), Ludhiana, respondent No. 1, in issuing a notice under S. 132A of the IT Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), on 23rd March, 1998, requiring the S.H.O., Police Station City, Phagwara, respondent No. 3, to deliver the custody of the amount of Rs. 21,05,000 seized from the petitioner by respondent No. 3, on 21st March, 1998. The petitioner has also challenged the consequential notice dt. 20th July, 1999 (annexure P 3), issued under S. 158BC of the Act by the Dy. CIT, Investigation Circle II(1), Ludhiana, respondent No. 2.
(2.)THE relevant facts leading to the aforesaid action of respondent No. 2 may first be noticed : On 21st March, 1998, the petitioner was driving a white Fiat Car No. PB 10 Q 8228, and was coming from Ludhiana side towards Phagwara. His car was checked at the check post set up for checking the vehicles at Hoshiarpur Chowk. During the search of his car, two bags containing Indian currency notes amounting to Rs. 21,05,000 were found. The petitioner was detained and the car and currency notes were also taken into custody for alleged offences under ss. 411 and 414 of the IPC r/w ss. 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act., 1973. FIR No. 27, dt. 21st March, 1998, was lodged with the Police Station, Sadar, Phagwara. On 22nd March, 1998, the police authorities applied to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for police remand of the petitioner for a week. On receipt of the information about this seizure, the IT authorities recorded the statement of the petitioner on 23rd March, 1998, to enquire into the source of the currency notes worth Rs. 21,05,000. Not satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner, respondent No. 1 issued a requisition under S. 132A of the Act on 23rd March, 1998, requiring respondent No. 3 to deliver the currency notes to him, as according to him, the same represented income or property which had not been or would not have been disclosed for the purposes of the Act. Respondent No. 3 in pursuance of the said requisition delivered the currency notes to respondent No. 1 on 24th March, 1998. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 issued a notice under S. 158BC of the Act dt. 20th July, 1999 (annexure P 3), requiring the petitioner to prepare and file the return for the block period 1st April, 1987, to 23rd March, 1998. The petitioner filed the necessary return on 6th Sept., 1999. The return was accompanied by a letter of the same date in which it had been mentioned that the notice was void as the block period mentioned in the same was 1st April, 1987, to 23rd March, 1998, whereas it should have been from 1st April, 1987, to 24th March, 1998, as the search warrant had been executed on 24th March, 1998. During the course of the assessment proceedings for the block period, the petitioner filed a letter dt. 13th Oct., 1999, wherein the validity of the requisition under S. 132A of the Act and consequential notice under S. 158BC of the Act was questioned on the ground that the IT authorities had no power to requisition the currency notes from the custody of the S.H.O., Police Station City, Phagwara. For this purpose, the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in Tej Pal Oswal vs. ITO (1979) 118 ITR 21 (P&H) : TC 61R.282. Respondent No. 2 did not agree with the petitioner's objection and continued with the proceedings initiated vide the impugned notice dt. 20th July, 1999. It is in this background that the present writ petition challenging the notices under ss. 132A and 158BC of the Act dt. 23rd March, 1998, and 20th July, 1999, respectively, has been filed.
The sole question for our consideration, therefore, is whether the requisition made by respondent No. 1 under S. 132A of the Act on 23rd March, 1998, is valid or not. It is agreed that our finding on this issue will also govern the validity of the notice under S. 158BC dt. 20th July, 1999, as the only ground for challenge to this notice is non existence of a valid requisition under s. 132A of the Act.

(3.)MR . A.K. Mittal, advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, referred to ss. 102 and 457 of the Cr.PC, 1973, to contend that once the police officer had seized the property, he was bound to follow the procedure prescribed under S. 102 of the Cr.PC, and as per sub s. (3) of S. 102, he was required to report the seizure to the magistrate having jurisdiction over the case. It was further stated that thereafter the seized property could only be dealt with in accordance with the orders of the magistrate passed under S. 457 of the Cr.PC. He further contended that till such time the magistrate passes an appropriate order under S. 457 of the Cr.PC, the police authorities would be deemed to be in possession of the seized property on behalf of the Court or as a custodian of the Court. For this purpose, he relied on the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Suraj Mohan Babu Mishra vs. State of Gujarat AIR 1967 Guj 126. It was, therefore, contended that the currency notes of Rs. 21,05,000 in the possession of respondent No. 3 should be deemed to be in the Court's custody and, therefore, the impugned requisition dt. 23rd March, 1998, under S. 132A of the Act was invalid as respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction to make such a requisition to a Court. He placed reliance on the decision of this Court in CIT vs. Balbir Singh (1994) 116 CTR (P&H) 308 : (1993) 203 ITR 650 (P&H) : TC 62R.309, and also on the decisions of the Kerala and Andhra Pradesh High Courts in Abdul Khader vs. Sub Inspector of Police (2000) 158 CTR (AP) 319 : (1999) 240 ITR 489 (AP) and Sadruddin Javeri vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh (2000) 162 CTR (AP) 496 : (2000) 243 ITR 579 (AP).