Diary found in I-T search: Karnataka HC quashes FIR on MLC's plaint

The High Court of Karnataka has quashed the FIR registered by the Indiranagar police based on the complaint by Member of Legislative Council (MLC) K Govindaraj and the subsequent notice issued to Income Tax (I-T) officials to hand over the diary seized during a search in 2016.

Observing that both the complainant (Govindaraj) and the Indiranagar police want to secure only the diary, Justice M Nagaprasanna said the FIR is unsustainable in view of section 293 of the Income Tax Act.

The I-T officials had conducted a search on the premises of Govindaraj on March 15, 2016, and seized several incriminating documents, including a diary. According to the I-T officials, the diary was found in the bedroom and contained recordings of various transactions with abbreviations and amounts against each of the abbreviations.

Meanwhile, on February 28, 2017, Govindaraj filed a complaint with the Indiranagar police alleging that there was gross violation of the procedure during the search and regarding documents that were seized, particularly the diary. Though the FIR was registered against unknown persons, a police notice under Section 91 of CrPC was issued to the I-T officials on April 13, 2017, directing them to hand over the diary.

The I-T officials, challenging the FIR and subsequent notice, contended that the FIR should not have been registered as they were performing official duty in terms of the provisions of the Income Tax Act. They also claimed that the provisions of CrPC cannot override the provisions of the Income Tax Act.

The court noted that a conjoint reading of Sections 132 and 138 (2) of the I-T Act, would lead to a conclusion that once seizure proceedings are undertaken, the officials are not obliged to furnish the document to any public servant.

“It is rather shocking that what the complainant wants in the complaint is, the diary and what the Police want to secure from the petitioners is the diary and no other document is required by the Police for investigation of the allegations of offences, which run into 15 in number, but only the diary. It cannot but be held that the 3rd respondent (police) was acting at the behest of the complainant to secure the diary by invoking Section 91 of the CrPC, thereby summoning the diary,” the court said.