NAROTAM DAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against an order of the Central Government dated 23rd November, 1964 by which it has dismissed the revision and maintained the order of the Central Board of Revenue dated 13th January, 1964 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the order of the Collector of Customs. dated 31st May, 1961, finally maintaining the order of confiscation of the gold in dispute and imposition of personal penalty on the petitioner. The petitioner Narotam Dass died during the pendency of this writ petition and is represented by four sons and one daughter who are his legal representatives, but reference in this judgment to the petitioner relate to Narotam Dass, deceased petitioner, for the sake of convenience.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the writ petition are that on 23rd August, 1958 at about 5.20 in the afternoon at Amritsar, one Sohan Lal, who turned out to be an employee of the petitioner, was apprehended as soon as he had got into a moving train and on being taken out of the train, he was searched and was found in possession of gold in dispute weighing 149 Tolas, 11 Mashas and 6 Ratties. He denied the possession of the gold and later on gave a statement in which he appears to have made a clean breast of the circumstances and implicated his employer, the deceased petitioner and in substance he stated that the petitioner used to melt gold of foreign markings and used to send it through him to Delhi and he had done it a number of times. He was in possession of railway ticket from Amritsar to Ludhiana, although he had to proceed to Delhi. The Customs Officers seized the gold and later, on the same day, recorded the statement of the petitioner (copy of which has been filed as annexture R-3). Subsequently, the Collector of Customs issued a show cause notice dated 14th November 1958 and followed it with another show cause notice (Annexure A-1) dated 22nd December, 1958 calling upon the petitioner as well 'as Sohan Lal to show cause against the confiscation of the gold in dispute as well as further penal action against them. The petitioner as well as Sohan Lal filed a joint reply to the show cause notice dt. 26th December, 1958. Personal hearing was granted by the Collector who, after hearing the counsel for the petitioner and after adjourning the case on a number of occasions, finally passed the order of adjudication dated 31st May, 1961 (Annexure 'B'). The Collector held "In view of the circumstances leading to the recovery of the gold from Shri Sohan Lal, the confessional statement of Shri Sohan Lal and the inability of Shri Narotam Das to prove bona fide procurement, there was of a reason to believe that the gold so recovered was of a foreign origin and had been imported into India illicitly." He, therefore, found the petitioner and Sohan Lal both guilty and ordered absolute confiscation of the gold in dispute and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,000.00 on the petitioner and Rs. 5,006.00 on Sohan Lal. The petitioner as well as Sohan Lal filed a joint appeal before the Central Board of Revenue which was firstly rejected by order dated 13th August, 1962, but this order was set aside by the Central Government on 6th April, 1963 and the appeal was remanded to the Board for fresh decision after hearing the parties. Eventually after remand, the Board decided the appeal by order dated 31st January, 1964 (Annexure 'B') and after taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case and the arguments put forward, it affirmed the findings of the Collector and held that the petitioners had failed to discharge the onus rightly placed on them under Section 178-A of the Sea Customs Act. It may be mentioned here that the main point raised before the Collector as well as the Board on appeal was that the statement of Sohan Lal had been made under duress and it was not voluntary confession. This was rejected by both the authorities The revision petition against these orders filed by the petitioner before the Govt. failed.

(3.) It appears that Sohan Lal did not file any" revision petitition before the Central Government, nor has he filed any writ petition in this Court. Narotam Dass, however, is aggrieved by the aforesaid orders and has filed this writ petition.