Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 159 (KAR)

Anand v. State Of Karnataka And Others

2020-01-20

S.G.PANDIT

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the Notice dated 5.1.2014 bearing No.20/2014 vide Annexure-G issued by the respondent No.3. 2. The petitioner claims that he is carrying on business in the co-operative sector, financial sector and other services along with agriculture. He is also running Sri. Vinayaka Finance Corporation. The petitioner is the Managing Director of the said firm. He is an income tax assessee and he is paying income tax regularly. To that effect, he has placed on record Annexure-C, Income Tax Return form for the year 2013-14. 3. The respondent-Police had registered a case against the petitioner under the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (for short, the Act) for the offence of gambling. In the said offence, after trial, the petitioner was acquitted. In another case registered against the petitioner under Section 78(3) of the Act, the petitioner had challenged the same before this Court in Crl.P. No.2647/2003. This Court by order dated 21.01.2004 quashed the said offence registered against the petitioner under CC No.102/2003. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 5.1.2014 issued by the respondent No.3 at Annexure-G, which reads as under: 5. In the above stated notice, the petitioner was asked to appear before the respondent-Police for investigation alleging that the petitioner is carrying on illegal activities in finance and he also owns multistoried complex. In the said notice, the petitioner was also asked to disclose the movable and immovable assets owned by him with supporting documents. The said notice is challenged on the ground that the respondent-Police have no jurisdiction to ask the petitioner to disclose his movable and immovable properties which would be violative of his fundamental right. 6. Learned AGA appearing for the respondents would submit that the State has filed objections and submits that as the police have registered the cases against the petitioner in Crime No.267/1998 and 244/2002, the respondents have issued the notice asking the petitioner to appear for investigation. It is also submitted that the petitioner involved in matka and gambling. Hence, justifies the issuance of the notice at Annexure-G dated 5.1.2014. 7. It is also submitted that the petitioner involved in matka and gambling. Hence, justifies the issuance of the notice at Annexure-G dated 5.1.2014. 7. A careful perusal of the notice dated 5.1.2014 would disclose that the police in the guise of calling the petitioner for investigation for alleged illegal activities in finance and business have asked him to disclose his movable and immovable assets with supporting documents. Learned AGA appearing for the respondents is not in a position to point out or trace out any of the provision under which the respondent-Police have issued such notice asking the petitioner to disclose his movable and immovable assets. As such, it is not open for the respondents to direct the petitioner to disclose his movable and immovable assets. Hence, I am of the view that the notice at Annexure-G dated 5.1.2014 is liable to be quashed insofar as it directs the petitioner to disclose/declare his movable and immovable assets is concerned. Accordingly, that portion of the notice is quashed. In all other respects, notice would remain intact. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.