R.R.Yadav, J. - (1.) THE aforesaid petitions are listed for admission, but with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, I propose to dispose of them on the merits.
(2.) BY filing Writ Petition No. 1554 of 1998, the petitioner, Shri Suresh Bhai Bhola Bhai Jani, questions the validity of warrant of authorisation dated March 27, 1998 (annexure 5), under Section 132A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as "the Act of 1961"), on the ground, inter alia, that on the information in possession of the Commissioner (respondent No. 2) no reasonable person could have entertained a belief that the amount of Rs. 12,00,000 (rupees twelve lakhs) seized on suspicion from possession of the petitioner represents undisclosed income for the block period. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 363 of 1998 under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, has been filed by the Income-tax Officer, Sumerpur, questioning the legality and validity of the order dated May 4, 1998, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class and Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sumerpur District, Pali, holding Shri Suresh Bhai Bhola Bhai Jani to be entitled to refund of Rs. 4,80,000 out of Rs. 12,00,000 seized from him by the police on suspicion on the basis of insertion of Section 158BFA in the Act of 1961. The petitioner is also aggrieved against the aforesaid order dated May 4, 1998, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class and Civil Judge (J. D.), Sumerpur, in exercise of his power under Section 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and has filed S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 406 of 1998 seeking a relief to quash the impugned order in so far as it allows income-tax authorities to retain 60 per cent. of the total amount of Rs. 12,00.000 with a direction to return the entire amount of Rs. 12,00,000 seized by the police on the basis of suspicion that the money was either stolen property or had been obtained through some other offence especially when the police failed to prove its suspicion. It is conceded by learned counsel for the parties that in the aforesaid three petitions common questions of law and facts are involved and, therefore, these three petitions can easily be heard and disposed of by a composite order. Accordingly, I propose to dispose of these three petitions by a common order treating S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1554 of 1998, as the leading case on the basis of the detailed reasons discussed hereinbelow.
(3.) THE brief facts necessary for effective and complete adjudication of the controversy involved between the parties are that on March 24, 1998, at about 11.30 p.m., the petitioner was travelling by Bus No. RJ19-P-4243 from Pali to Ahmedabad. While the said bus was being checked on the way by the SHO, Police Thana, Sumerpur, he found cash of Rs. 12,00,000 in the possession of the petitioner and seized the same under Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code, on suspicion. It is averred in the writ petition that the said cash of Rs. 12,00,000 carried by the petitioner was given to him for payment to one Mr. Ramesh Soni, in respect of purchase of a land for which the proprietor of Johnson Jewellers, Shri Anil Kumar P. Soni, had entered into an agreement. However, since on account of non-finalisation of the deal on telephonic instructions of the said proprietor the said amount was not paid to Shri Ramesh Soni and was being taken back to the owner, Shri Anil Kumar, proprietor of Johnson Jewellers, when it was seized by the police authority as aforesaid and the petitioner was arrested on March 24, 1998. It is further averred in paragraph 4 of the writ petition that the police officials recorded his incriminating statement under coercion wherein he stated that the aforesaid cash was collected against the sale of gold and silver at Pali and Jodhpur. The petitioner had already retracted from his aforesaid statement in Case No. 135 of 1998. ;