AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1965 OF 2009 Dhiren Gor ... Petitioner Vs. Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence & Ors. ... Respondents ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1967 OF 2009 Purshottam Vyas ... Petitioner Vs. Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Atish Roy for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Jetly for the respondents. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 18TH MARCH, 2009. AJN 2 P.C.:- 1. In both these petitions, the basic grievance of the petitioners is that the seizure effected by the respondents is bad in law inasmuch as the reasons to believe have not been recorded. In view of this submission, we had directed learned counsel for the respondents to produce the relevant file today in the court. Accordingly, the file is brought to the court by the respondents. 2. We have carefully perused the file and we find that the reasons are indeed recorded. Therefore, this submission is devoid of any merits and deserves to be rejected. Our attention is drawn to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dr. Pratap Singh & Anr. v. Director of Enforcement, Foreign Exchange Regulation Act & Ors., AIR 1985 SC 989. Learned counsel placed reliance on the observations of the Supreme Court to the effect that “the expression “reason to believe” is not synonymous with subjective satisfaction of the officer. The belief must be held in good faith; it cannot be merely a pretence”. It is not possible for us, at this stage, to hold that the belief held by the respondents is merely a AJN 3 pretence. However, it will be open to the petitioners to agitate this point at the appropriate time. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners also drew our attention to the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Mapsa Tapes Private Limited vs. Union of India, 2006 (201) E.L.T. 7 (P & H) where the Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that while existence of power of seizure may be justified but its exercise will be liable to be struck down unless “reasons to believe” were duly recorded before action of search and seizure is taken. Observing that nothing was produced before the court to show as to whether reasons were recorded or not before search was authorized, the Punjab & Haryana High Court held that action of search and seizure is liable to be quashed. The Union of India carried an appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court by its order dated 15/2/2008 dismissed the special leave petition by observing as under: “Having perused the original record we find no infirmity in the opinion expressed by the High Court AJN 4 in its impugned judgment. The special leave petition is dismissed.” 4. In our opinion, this judgment will have no application to the facts of this case because as we have already noted, we have perused the file and we find that the “reasons to believe” are duly recorded before seizing the goods. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the show cause notice issued to the petitioners does not reflect the reasons to believe. The fact that the reasons to believe are not contained in the show cause notice do not render the seizure illegal. Moreover, validity of the show cause notice is not challenged in these writ petitions. In our opinion, there is no substance in these petitions. The petitions are dismissed. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [J.P. DEVADHAR, J.]