TRILOCHAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order of seizure in respect of the petitioner's goods made on May 13, 1969 and the show cause notice dated May 13, 1969 and the proceedings commenced by way of complaint dated May 3, 1969 pending in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi.

(2.) THE facts mentioned by the petitioner in the writ petition are these : - The petitioner is a citizen of India and holds passport No. I -306019. The petitioner had gone to Singapore. From Singapore the petitioner brought certain goods for taking the same to Kathmandu, Nepal. From Singapore the petitioner travelled by Cathay Pacific Airlines to Bangkok and from Bangkok the petitioner travelled by Japan Airlines and landed at Palam Airport, New Delhi on 12th May, 1969 at 10.05 p.m. The petitioner was holding a ticket for the further onward journey from New Delhi to Kathmandu (Nepal), and return. Before proceeding to Kathmandu, the petitioner desire to stop over at New Delhi for a few days for the purpose of meeting his friends and relatives at his native village at Tarn Taran (Distt. Amritsar). On arrival at Palam Airport the petitioner on entering the custom hall requested the Customs Officer on duty to keep his baggage containing the said goods in bonded custody with a request that the same be handed over to the petitioner on his onward journey to Kathmandu after a few days. The petitioner made a specific request for keeping the said goods in bond, but the Customs Officer insisted upon inspecting the said baggage. The petitioner told the Customs Officer that as the said goods were not to be taken across the customs barrier but were only required to be kept in bonded custody, the Customs officer could not inspect the same and no purpose would be served in inspecting the same. The request of the petitioner was wrongly not acceded to and inspire of the petitioner repeatedly requesting the Customs Officer not to harass the petitioner in this manner, the baggage of the petitioner was opened up and searched. Though the petitioner specifically requested for keeping the said baggage in bond, the Customs Officer on duty insisted on requiring the petitioner to file up a baggage declaration form. The petitioner explained that as he did not intend to clear the said goods across the Customs barrier, it would serve no purpose in filling the baggage declaration form. However, on insistence of the Customs Officer, the petitioner filled up the said Baggage Declaration Form and wrote on it in clear terms that the goods were not intended to be imported into India and that his request for bonding the same be granted.

(3.) THE case further proceeds that inspire of oral request to keep the goods in bonded custody and an endorsement in terms of the said request in the Baggage Declaration Form, the Customs Officer still ignored the petitioner's request for keeping the same in bonded custody and illegally and without authority of law and in excess of his jurisdiction seized the said goods and made a 'panchnama' dated May 13, 1969 in respect of the same. The Customs Officer also recorded the statement of the petitioner in which statement the petitioner stated in clear terms that he intended to take the said goods to Kathmandu, Nepal and did not intend to import into India and that he had requested that the goods be kept in customs bond. The petitioner's signatures were taken on the 'Panchnama' as well on the said statement on an endorsement that the copy of the same supplied to the petitioner, though no copies were supplied to the petitioner.