JUDGMENT J. N. SARMA, J. - Petitioner No. 1 is a limited company and deals in sale and supply of pump sets. It has a branch at Guwahati. The petitioner-company is a registered dealer under the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956, with the Superintendent of Taxes, Unit-C at Guwahati. The goods, namely, pump sets, sold by the petitioner-company being item falling under item No. 47, namely, "all machineries and spare parts thereof" to the Schedule of taxable goods attached to the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956, petitioner-company paid the taxes at the rate of 7 per cent in a rupee. The respondent No. 4 after examination of the accounts assessed the petitioner-company for the periods ending March 31, 1987. The respondent No. 3 issued a notice under section 31(1) of the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act asking the petitioner-company to produce the accounts mentioned in the said notice for the last 8 (eight) years on February 19, 1990, for verification of purchase and sale of monoblock pump sets. 2. The petitioner-company moved a revision application before the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes challenging the aforesaid notice dated February 17, 1990. The respondent No. 1 admitted the application and stayed the operation of the impugned notice on October 13, 1990, the respondent No. 5, namely, the Superintendent of Taxes, attached to the Bureau of Investigation (Economic Offence), Assam, Rehabari, Guwahati, visited the business premises of the petitioner-company along with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bureau of Investigation (Economic Offence), Guwahati and served a notice under section 31(1) of the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956 directing the petitioner-company to produce the accounts, documents and other relevant papers relating to the purchase/sale of electrically operated pump sets on the same day and at the same time, the books of account were seized by the respondent No. 5 in the purported exercise of power under section 31(1) of the aforesaid Act. Books of account were seized by the respondent No. 5 in the purported exercise of power under section 31(3) of the Act and to that effect a seizure list also was served. A revision application was filed before the respondent No. 1 and the aforesaid application was admitted and all further proceedings in the matter were stayed. Books of account were seized by the respondent No. 5 in the purported exercise of power under section 31(3) of the Act and to that effect a seizure list also was served. A revision application was filed before the respondent No. 1 and the aforesaid application was admitted and all further proceedings in the matter were stayed. The revision application was heard finally by the Joint Commissioner of Taxes (respondent No. 2) and declared the seizure as well as the notice under section 31(1) of the Act to be illegal and quashed the notice dated October 17, 1990 and directed the respondent No. 5 to release all the seized books of account within 7 days. On February 26, 1991, the respondent No. 5, issued notice to the petitioner-company to collect all the seized books of account from the office of the Director, Bureau of Investigation (EO), Assam, Guwahati on February 29, 1991, at 11 a.m. 3. A team of officials of the Bureau of Investigation (EO), Assam accompanied by respondents Nos. 5 and 6 conducted a search in the premises of the petitioner-company on the strength of a search warrant said to be issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati. After search, the respondent No. 6, seized the books of account of the petitioner-company for the last 8 years on the ground of suspicion of evading tax. The petitioner-company preferred revision application before the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam. The respondent No. 1 admitted the revision application and stayed all further proceedings in the matter. The revision application was finally heard by the respondent No. 1, the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, and the same was dismissed on the ground that the seizure was not made under the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956 and as such, there is no reason to exercise the revisional power. Hence this writ application. 4. I have heard Dr. A. K. Saraf, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. B. P. Todi, learned counsel for the respondents. The following points are urged by Dr. Saraf : "1. That the entire proceedings initiated by the Bureau of Investigation are void ab initio as the same are contrary to and inconsistent with the specific provisions of law contained in the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956. 2. B. P. Todi, learned counsel for the respondents. The following points are urged by Dr. Saraf : "1. That the entire proceedings initiated by the Bureau of Investigation are void ab initio as the same are contrary to and inconsistent with the specific provisions of law contained in the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956. 2. That the Inspector of Police (BIEO) having no authority of law to seize the books of account of the petitioner-company under the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956, the impugned action of the Inspector of Police (BIEO) is wholly illegal, without jurisdiction and not tenable in law. 3. That the seizure of the books of account of the petitioner-company is illegal, arbitrary and capricious as there cannot be any basis and/or satisfaction for such a belief that the petitioner was attempting to evade payment of tax under the Act nor any such satisfaction and/or reason thereof was recorded by the seizing officer before the seizure of the said books of account. 4. That the Commissioner of Taxes acted arbitrarily and illegally in dismissing the revision application filed by the petitioner on the ground that the seizure has not been made under the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act without considering the fact that any proceeding relating to evasion of tax under the Act can be taken only by resorting to the provisions of the Act. The Commissioner of Taxes being the sole authority vested with the power under the Act, it was not proper on the part of the Commissioner of Taxes in not exercising its jurisdiction and thereby denying the petitioner its legal rights and remedy. 5. That the issue of search warrant by the Chief Judicial Magistrate without the previous sanction of the Commissioner is illegal and without jurisdiction inasmuch as, section 27 of the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956, provides that no court shall take cognizance of any offence except with the previous sanction of the Commissioner. 6. The seizure was not made by an authority appointed under the Act inasmuch as the learned Commissioner himself has mentioned that seizure had not been made under the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, issued the search warrant without ascertaining whether sanction had been taken or not. 7. 6. The seizure was not made by an authority appointed under the Act inasmuch as the learned Commissioner himself has mentioned that seizure had not been made under the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, issued the search warrant without ascertaining whether sanction had been taken or not. 7. The Bureau of Investigation (BIEO) having seized the books of account earlier, and the same being declared illegal by the Joint Commissioner of Taxes, it was most illegal to seize the books of account again for the last 8 years of the same assessee including the accounts that were seized earlier. The said action has flouted the highest authority under the Act. 8. That the petitioner having sold 'monoblock pump sets' which is falling under item 47 of the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956, namely, 'all machineries and spare parts thereof' and tax having been paid on the same, tax on the same cannot be said to have been evaded on the ground that the items is 'electrical goods'." 5. Before we go through the contentions urged by Dr. Saraf, let us have a look at the relevant portion of the search and seizure of annexure VIII to the writ application. That relevant portion is quoted below : "I, Shri Kripal Goswami, Inspector of Police, Bureau of Investigation (Economic Offence), Assam, Rehabari, Guwahati, do hereby seize the following books of account from the office of the M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd., Lachitnagar, Guwahati, suspecting to have contained some records of evading tax on being produced by Shri Chittaranjan Deka, accounts officer of the company by today the 27th February, 1991, on the strength of the search warrant issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati. The seizure was made in presence of the witnesses signed below and after observing all the formalities of house search ........" 6. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the respondents and in paragraph 14 of the affidavit-in-opposition it is, inter alia, stated as follows : "That with regard to the statements made in paragraphs 13 to 26, the deponent begs to say that evasion of tax is a cognizable offence under section 38 of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947 and section 25 of the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956. Police have been enjoined with the responsibility in investigating into cognizable offences under section 156 of the Cr. P.C. which contemplates as follows : '(1) Any officer in-charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII. (2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the grounds that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate'." In the instant case, police had definite information that M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd. had paid less tax on electrically operated pump sets than what they ought to have paid as per existing rules. Paying less tax than what is due is virtually nothing but evasion of taxes coming within the mischief of section 25 of the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956. On receipt of credible information about evasion of taxes by the petitioner-firm, police acted under section 157 of the Cr. P.C. and submitted a report to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati, for issue of a search warrant authorising search of the business of M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd. and the residential premises of the manager of the firm. During the course of search, police seized books of account particularly bill books of the said firm for 8 years from 1982 to 1991. The said seized books of account were not verified by the officers of the Taxation Cell attached to the Bureau of Investigation (Economic Offence) who worked out the evaded amount to be Rs. 10,53,130.45 (rupees ten lakhs fifty-three thousand one hundred thirty and forty five paise only.) The Judicial Magistrate is a competent authority to issue a search warrant under section 91, Cr. P.C. read with section 93, Cr. P.C. against any person for production of documents when he is satisfied that a person or a firm to whom a summons or order under section 91, Cr. P.C. or a requisition under sub-section (1) of section 93, Cr. P.C. has been or might be addressed will not or would not produce the documents or thing as required by such summons or requisition. P.C. or a requisition under sub-section (1) of section 93, Cr. P.C. has been or might be addressed will not or would not produce the documents or thing as required by such summons or requisition. Here in the instant case, the books of account of the firm were required by the Bureau of Investigation (Economic Offence) to find out the extent of evasion of taxes and the firm was not likely to produce the records in response to a summon or notice issued under section 91, Cr. P.C. The Chief Judicial Magistrate was very much within his jurisdiction and competency while he issued the search warrant. While issuing the search warrant, the Chief Judicial Magistrate has not taken cognizance of an offence under section 25 of the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956, that issuing a search warrant for the purpose of investigation does not amount to taking cognizance of an offence. Question of taking cognizance will arise only when after investigation of a case, police frames a charge sheet against the offender under section 173 of the Cr. P.C. Under the circumstances the issuing of search warrant by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and consequent search and seizure of books of account of the petitioner-firm by the officers of the Bureau of Investigation (Economic Offence) are not arbitrary, illegal as contended by the petitioner. 7. It is evident under Sales Tax Act, 1956, the procedure provided for search and seizure, the provision of the Act must be followed. But it is contended that was not done in the instant case. Accordingly this seizure is urged to be quashed. In this connection, Dr. Saraf placed reliance in AIR 1965 SC 1 (Nilratan Sircar v. Lakshmi Narayan Ram Niwas) wherein the Supreme Court in paragraph 14, inter alia, states as follows : "14. It was also urged for the appellant that the provisions of section 5(2) of the Code apply to the present case in matters which are not provided by the Act. This contention too has no basis. Section 5 provides that all offences under any law other than the Indian Penal Code shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences. The Act is a special Act and it provides under section 19-A for the necessary investigation into the alleged suspected commission of an offence under the Act, by the Director of Enforcement. The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure therefore will not apply to such investigation by him, assuming that the expression 'investigation ' includes the retaining of the documents for the purposes of the investigation." 8. Relying on the decision Dr. Saraf submits that no recourse can be taken to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The action of the authority must be within the four corners of the Sales Tax Act, 1956 and admittedly that being not the position, the seizure is liable to be quashed. On the other hand, Dr. Todi submits that this seizure and search must be deemed to be under the Code of Criminal Procedure in the facts and circumstances of the case and not under the Act of 1956, as pointed out in paragraph 14 of the affidavit-in-opposition. This seizure is under the Code of Criminal Procedure and as such question of following procedure as enunciated in the Act of 1956 does not arise. Section 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is quoted below : "Section 5 : Saving. - Nothing contained in this Code shall, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, affect any special or local law for the time being in force, or any special jurisdiction or power conferred or any special form of procedure prescribed, by any other law for the time being in force." 9. The Section provides that in the absence of any specific provision to the contrary, nothing contained in the Code have to affect any special or local law, that means if some other procedure is provided in the special law it is that procedure which will prevail and not the procedure prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is no quarrel with this proposition but the question is whether the procedure regarding search and seizure as provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure has been ousted by the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956, as mentioned above. 10. Section 25 of the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956, enumerates offences and penalties thereof under that particular Act. There is no quarrel with this proposition but the question is whether the procedure regarding search and seizure as provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure has been ousted by the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956, as mentioned above. 10. Section 25 of the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956, enumerates offences and penalties thereof under that particular Act. A person may commit some other offences which are not enumerated in that particular provision and that Act shall not apply but the authority shall have power to take resort to the provisions of the Code which are not contrary to the provisions of the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956, that is what was done in the instant case, as will be evident from the affidavit-in-opposition. 11. The unfortunate thing in this case is that the records which were given to the Government Advocate have been missing in the office of the learned Government Advocate and in support of that Dr. Todi produced before me a letter dated February 1, 1995, written by the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, Guwahati. 12. In that view of the matter, I could not peruse the record and Dr. Todi was not in a position to produce the same. At this stage Dr. Saraf places reliances in (1994) 1 GLR 356 (Rabindra Nath Chetia v. Union of India) wherein this Court pointed out that when certain statements are made in the affidavit to be true to the information derived from the record and in support of the claim if records are not produced the affidavit filed cannot be deemed to be affidavit in the eye of law. It is further stated in that judgment that in the absence of proper verification, affidavit cannot be accepted as evidence. But from the facts and circumstances of the case, it will be seen that records were there but the records are missing at present in the office of the Government Advocate (Assam). 13. Accordingly writ application is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.