RAJENDRAN CHINGARAVELU versus MR. R.K. MISHRA, ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF IT & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 15 S.C.R. 1113 · Decided: 24-11-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1113 
RAJENDRAN CHINGARAVELU 
A 
v . 
......... 
MR. R.K. MISHRA, ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF IT & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 7914 of 2009) 
NOVEMBER 24, 2009 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
' 
... 
Article 226(2) - Writ petition - Territorial jurisdiction - A 
passenger disclosing at the Hyderabad Airport to security 
personnel about carrying huge amount of cash alongwith a c 
bank certificate indicating legitimacy of the source - The 
passenger allowed to board the plane for Chennai - At 
Chennai, the Police Officers pulled the passenger from air craft 
and took him for inquiry - lnspite of the explanation of the 
passenger about the legitimacy of the funds, he was detained D 
for 15 hours at the airport, information released to newspapers 
~ 
and proceedings under Income Tax Act initiated against the 
,, 
passenger - Writ petition of the passenger in the High Court 
of Andhra Pradesh dismissed on the ground that no part of 
cause of action arose within the State - HELD: High Court did E 
not examine whether any part of cause of action arose in Andhra 
Pradesh - Clause (2) of Article 226 makes it clear that the High 
Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within 
which the cause of action arises wholly or in part, will have 
~ 
jurisdiction - This would mean that even if a small fraction of 
the cause of action accrued within the territories of Andhra 
F 
.. 
Pradesh, the High Court of that State will have jurisdiction - In 
the instant case, the genesis for the entire episode of search, 
seizure and detention of petitioner was action of the security! 
intelligence officials at Hyderabad Airport who having 
inspected the cash carried by him, alerted their counterparts G 
at the Chennai Airport that petitioner was carrying a huge sum 
of money, and required to be intercepted and questioned - A 
><,., 
part of the cause of action, therefore clearly arose in Hyderabad 
- It is also to be noticed that consequential income tax 
1113 
H 
1114 --SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A proceedings against ttie passenger, which he challenged in the 
writ petition, were also initiated at Hyderabad - Therefore, his 
writ petition ought not to have been rejected on the ground of 
•. ~ 
want of jurisdiction - Investigation/Inquiries. 
Investigation/Inquiries: 
B 
Search of air passengers by Air Intelligence Unit/ 
Investigation Units of Income Tax Department- Air passenger 
carrying huge sum of money - lnspite of showing documents 
about source and legitimacy of funds, passenger detained, 
cash seized and income tax proceedings initiated against him 
. .,. 
c and matter disclosed to media which in tum publicised it - Writ 
. .4--
petition by passenger seeking compensation and action 
against erring officers and newspapers, to quash income tax 
proceedings against him and issuance of appropriate 
directions for reform and streamlining the procedure relating 
D 
to checking of passengers - As regards directions for reform 
and streamlining the procedure, at the instance of the Court, 
Central Board of Direct Taxes issued circular dated 18. 11.2009 
laying down the procedure tq avoid harassment in the course 
): 
" 
of enquiry/search of air passengers by the Air Intelligence 
!... 
Units/Investigation Units of Income Tax Department regarding 
E claim of compensation - On the issue of compensation and 
action against erring officers for harassment, HELD: When the 
bonafides of a passenger carrying an unusually large sum, and 
his claims regarding the sources and legitimacy, have to be 
verified, some delay and inconvenience is inevitable - The 
F 
inspecting and investigating officers have to make sure that the 
y 
money was not intended for any illegal purpose - In such a 
" 
situation, rights of the passenger will have to yield to public 
interest - Even if the carrier is not guilty of any offence in 
carrying. the money, the verification or seizure may be 
G 
warranted to ensure that the money is n·ot intended for 
commission of a crime or offence - But the appellant's 
grievance in regard to media being informed about the incident 
even before completion of investigation, is justified - There is 
a growing tendency among investigating officers (either police 
~ 
or other departments) to inform the media,· even before the 
H 
completion of investigation, that they have caught a criminal 
RAJENDRAN CHINGARAVELU v. R.K. MISHRA, 
1115 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.