The Search and Seizure action was conduced by the Income tax Authorities.  The police wanted to investigate was the act of search and seizure done by the petitioners. Petitioner filed writ before the High Court and contended that the a conjoint reading of sections 132 and 138(2) of the Act, would lead to an unmistakable conclusion that once seizure proceedings are undertaken by the officials of the Department under authorisation, they are not obliged to furnish any document to any public servant in respect of such matters relating to the assessee against whom search and seizure is taken up.  Section 293 of the Act mandates that no suit shall be brought in any civil court to set aside or modify any proceeding taken or order made under the Act and no prosecution, suit or other proceeding shall lie against the Government or any officer of the Government for any act done in good faith under the Act. The bar that operates under section 293 of the Act, is twofold, i. e., no proceedings shall be instituted before a civil court and no prosecution shall lie against the Government or any officer of the Government for anything done under the Act. Allowing the writ petition the Court held that the bar of divulging any information or any document taken into custody during the seizure was available under section 138(2) of the Act. What the police wanted to investigate was the act of search and seizure done by the petitioners. Therefore, it could not be contended that the first information report named nobody and the writ petition would not be maintainable. Since the first information report could not have been registered against the petitioners in view of the specific bar under section 293 of the Act, the aftermath of such registration would be rendered without authority of law.