Understanding Search and Seizure under CRPC and Section 132(13)

Search and Seizure under CRPC and Its Reference under Section 132(13)

Section 132(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, references search and seizure provisions outlined in the Criminal Procedure Code (CRPC) of 1973. The significance of these provisions is highlighted by the requirement that quasi-judicial authorities adhere to general law principles, which reinforces the fundamentals of justice delivery that extend beyond courts. All entities administering justice must maintain impartiality—a prerequisite for effective justice, whether in courts or quasi-judicial bodies.

Principles of Natural Justice

In English law, "natural justice" denotes two primary rules:

1. The Right to a Fair Hearing (Audi Alteram Partem): Individuals affected by a decision should have the opportunity to present their viewpoint and defend themselves.

2. The Rule Against Bias (Nemo Iudex in Causa Sua): Panels must be free from bias to ensure fair decisions.

Natural justice is governed by three main rules:

• Hearing Rule: Every affected party must have a chance to voice their concerns.
• Bias Rule: Decision-makers should act impartially.
• Reasoned Decision: Any order or decision must be supported by legitimate, reasoned grounds.

Provisions for Search and Seizure

CRPC Section 93 outlines when a warrant may be issued:

1. When a summons, order, or requisition has not been complied with.
2. When search and seizure are necessary for inquiry, trial, or other proceedings.

Correspondingly, Section 132 of the Income Tax Act outlines the conditions for search and seizure, specifically indicating that such actions may occur if a Section 131 notice is not complied with, or if there is suspicion of unexplained money, bullion, jewelry, or other goods.

It’s crucial to note that unlike courts, departmental authorities cannot initiate search and seizure solely to bolster their proceedings, as defined by Section 132(1). Consequently, an assessee cannot be compelled to produce incriminating materials, as this would violate Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution, which safeguards individuals against self-incrimination.

Rights and Responsibilities During Search

Section 100 of CRPC grants search authorities the right to enter and personally search premises. Specific requirements include:

• Women must be searched by other women, ensuring decency.
• The search party must invite two witnesses and compile a list of all seized items, providing a copy to the occupant of the premises.
• Following the seizure, items must be presented to the authority that issued the search warrant as per Section 101.

Additional provisions include:

• Section 38: Allows other individuals to assist in executing a search warrant.
• Section 70: States that a warrant remains valid until executed or canceled.

Key Case Laws

Several landmark cases illustrate the application and interpretation of these provisions:

1. V. S. Kuttan Pillai v. Ramakrishnan: Validated the procedural integrity of search warrants, confirming that such searches do not compel self-incrimination under Article 20(3).

2. Matajog Dobey v. H.C. Bhari: Stressed the importance of compliance with statutory provisions; non-compliance can undermine the credibility of evidence obtained.

3. State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy: Recognized bank accounts as property under Section 102, allowing seizure related to the underlying offense.

4. State of MP v. Paltan Mallah: Established that evidence obtained from illegal searches may still be admissible unless it severely prejudices the accused's case.

5. Modan Singh v. State of Rajasthan: Asserted that compelling evidence discovered by the prosecuting officer cannot be dismissed due to disapproval from seizure witnesses.

Discovery and Inspection under Section 131(1)(a)

A fundamental principle of law is ensuring equal access to procedures for both parties involved in a trial. The Civil Procedure Code, 1908, emphasizes this through specific chapters that promote fairness. Once a plaint is filed, either party can request documents to clarify facts overlooked in the suit.

This authority extends to departmental authorities but should equally be inherent for the assessee to ensure unbiased justice. As described in Section 131, interrogatories can be served, facilitating a structured exchange of information, akin to processes outlined in the CPC.

Order XI of the CPC allows courts (or administering authorities) to issue interrogatories for examination. Irrelevant interrogatories may be deemed inadmissible, and answers must be provided within ten days, or further orders may be issued for clarification.

In conclusion, adequate provisions in both CRPC and the Income Tax Act uphold the principles of natural justice while providing a structured framework for search and seizure. Understanding these legal nuances is essential for individuals navigating the legal landscape.