H.N. Seth, J. - (1.) THESE are four petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. As all petitioners in these petitions are claiming reliefs in similar circumstances, we have, with the consent of parties, treated all these petitions and affidavits filed therein as constituting one record and have heard them together,
(2.) SMT. Manju Tandon, wife of Triloki Nath and SMT. Bina Tandon, wife of Ashok Kumar, are petitioners in Writ Petition No. 637 of 1976. Their respective husbands are related to each other as brothers and they reside at 169, Jijmau, Kanpur. SMT. Savitri Tandon, wife of Kailash Nath Tandon, petitioner in Writ Petition No. 638 of 1976, is the mother-in-law of the two petitioners in Writ Petition No. 637 of 1976, and she along with other members of the family also resides in house No. 169, Jajmau, Kanpur. SMT. Hira Devi Tandon, wife of Bhola Nath Tandon, petitioner in Writ Petition No. 639 of 1976, along with her daughter-in-law, SMT. Girja Devi Tandon, wife of Vijai Narain Tandon, and SMT. Vina Devi Tandon, wife of Shiam Kishore Tandon, petitioners in Writ Petition No. 640 of 1976, and other members of the family reside in house No. 28/37, Pheelkbana, Kanpur. Petitioners, SMT. Manju Tandon, SMT. Girja Devi Tandon and SMT. Vina Devi Tandon, are partners in a firm known as M. T. Agencies having shares of 4.05%, 1.5% and 1.5% respectively. Petitioner, SMT. Bina Tandon, wife of Ashok Kumar, is a partner in another firm known as M.T. Co. having 4% share therein. In pursuance of an order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Sri T. N. Kapoof, the [Deputy Superintendent, CBI, got the two residential houses of the petitioners numbered as 169, Jajmau, and 28/37, Pheelkhana, searched by C.B.I. Inspectors, Sarvasri B. N. P. Azad and V. K. Sobti, on May 8, 1976, and recovered certain documents, ornaments and gold bonds from various portions thereof. Thereafter, the recovered articles and documents were, after obtaining necessary orders from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, produced before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate then directed that the seized ornaments, and articles were to be kept in the custody of the Special Police Establishment which at that time was investigating into a case with regard to fraud and cheating said to have been committed by persons connected with the firms. Messrs. Gur Prasad Ram Prasad, M. T. Company and M. T. Agencies. On May 13, 1976, Smt. Hira Devi, petitioner in Writ Petition No. 639 of 1976, moved an application before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur, praying that the ornaments and gold bonds, which she claimed belonged to her and which had been seized by the Special Police Establishment, be directed to be released in her favour. Sri T. N. Kapoor, Deputy Superintendent, objected to the prayer made in the application, inter alia, on the ground that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had no jurisdiction to direct the release of the ornaments seized by the Special Police-Establishment. However, the application filed by the petitioner has remained pending and no final orders have been passed on it as yet.
(3.) IN the meantime, CIT, Kanpur, in exercise of his powers under Section 132A of the I.T. Act, issued an authorization to requisition the documents and articles seized by the C.B.I. and those documents and articles were requisitioned from the possession of Sri. T.N. Kapoor, accordingly. The ITO, Circle I (in), Kanpur; then issued notices dated 3rd September, 1976, under rule 112A of the I.T. Rules, 1962, read with Section 132(5) of the I.T. Act, 1961, to Smt. Manju Tandon and Smt. Bina Tandon, petitioners in Writ Petition No. 637 of 1976, as also to Smt. Girja Devi Tandon and Smt. Vina Devi Tandon, petitioners in Writ Petition No. 640 of 1976. The notices issued by the ITO required the aforementioned persons to explain the source of acquisition of the ornaments which had been delivered to him by Sri T. N. Kapoor, Deputy Superintendent of Police. The petitioners filed objections before the ITO on 18th September, 1976, claiming that in those proceedings the jewellery belonging to them individually which did not represent any concealed income as mentioned in the notices had been ilkgally seized. The ITO, Kanpur, vide his orders dated 17th November, 1976 (four in number), assessed Smt. Manju Tandon, Bina Tandon, Girja Devi Tandon and Vina Devi Tandon to additional tax under Section 132(5) of the I.T. Act, treating all the ornaments recovered from premises No. 169, Jajmau, Kanpur, and house No. 28/37 Pheelkhana, as belonging to them. He further directed that the said ornaments which had been produced before him should be retained in his custody for satisfying the amount determined against each of the aforementioned four petitioners. The petitioners then filed the present petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution impugning the validity of the search dated 8th May, 1976, and seizure of their respective ornaments by the Special Police Establishment. They further challenged the validity of the proceedings initiated under Section 132A of the I.T. Act, as also that of the orders passed by the ITO directing that the gold ornaments belonging to them be retained in his custody for the realisation of the dues determined against Manju Tandon, Bina Tandon, Girja Devi Tandon and Vina Devi Tandon. They further prayed that various assessment orders passed by the ITO on 17th November, 1976, should be quashed and that a direction be. issued that their respective ornaments be returned to them. All the respondents, excepting the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, put in appearance and contested the prayer made in these petitions. Sri T. N. Kapoor filed affidavits justifying search and seizure ol ornaments by the Special Police Establishment. He also took up the plea that even though the ornaments and assets seized by the police had been handed over to the income-tax department for taking proceedings under Section 132(5) of the I.T. Act, still they were not to be released to the concerned parties as the criminal case was still under investigation. Accordingly be had written a letter, dated 24th November, 1976, to the CIT requesting him not to release the ornaments to the concerned parties without consulting the Central Bureau of Investigation. He claimed that so long as the investigation of the case was pending, the police was entitled to retain, the ornaments as the same were likely to be produced as material exhibits in the trial that was to follow the investigation.;