SAIN DITTA MAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions filed by Sain Ditta Mal and his son Harivansh Lal raise the same issues and can be disposed of by a common judgment. It is common ground that the facts are identical in both cases and do not need to be separately dealt with.

(2.) The petitioners are citizens of India. Each of them is a 'certified goldsmith' within the meaning of the Gold Control Rules in Part XII-A of the Defence of India Rules 1962. The residential premises of the petitioners viz., 4-B/32, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi was searched by Officers of the Customs Department on 6-7-1966. Gold ornaments weighing 502 gms. and 120 round pieces of gold were taken into custody. Eventually the gold ornaments have been released and I am not concerned with them here. However, the 120 round pieces of gold have been confiscated and a personal penalty has been imposed on each of the petitioners and it is the validity of this confiscation and these penalties that are under challenge 10 these writ petitions.

(3.) On 6-7-1966, immediately after the search and seizure, a statement was recorded from each of the petitioners. According to the petitioners these statements had been obtained from them by threats and coercion and they had stated so in their telegram and letters of the 7th and llth July, 1966. This aspect of the matter is, however, not of much relevance now. Under the Customs Act, 1962 the authority had to initiate action to confiscate the seized articles within a period of six months of the seizure (which could be extended by another period of six months) failing which they were bound to return the goods to the petitioners, vide S. 110 (2) of the Act. In the present case, the first six months' period expired on 5-1-1967 but the authorities exercised their right of extension. They had, therefore, to take a decision regarding confiscation by the 5th July, 1967 but they failed to pass any order of confiscation by this date.