PRIT PAL SINGH UPPAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prit Pal Singh Uppal, the petitioner herein, along with Sh. Inderpal Singh were intercepted by the DRI Officers while leaving for HongKong on 13th March, 2003. Upon personal search, foreign currency equivalent to Indian value of Rs.48,33,000/- was stated to have been recovered from their possession. When they were taken to Patiala, on 14th March, 2003 foreign currency of Rs.2,44,050/- is again stated to have been recovered but no statement of the petitioner was recorded on 14th March, 2003. Additional Commissioner of Customs confiscated the entire foreign currency under Section 113 (d), 113 (e) and 113 (h) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and also imposed a penalty of Rs.5 lakhs on each of the persons above stated, vide order dated 30th September, 2004. Aggrieved from the said order, appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). Vide order dated 19th November, 2004, they were directed to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- each as pre-deposit for hearing of the appeals within two weeks from the date of the order. According to the petitioners, they were not able to comply with this condition due to their poor financial condition and therefore filed a revision petition under Section 129 DD of the Act before the Government of India on 8th December, 2004. Joint Secretary of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, did not remand the matter but himself decided the appeal on merits and reduced the penalty amount of Rs.5 lakhs to Rs. 4 lakhs in each case. In the present petition, the petitioners are questioning the legality and correctness of this order dated 16th March, 2005 passed by respondent no.2 and they also prayed that the orders passed by the lower authorities should also be quashed.

(2.) Before us the order is impugned on two grounds. Firstly, that there is violation of principles of natural justice and secondly that the penalty imposed upon the petitioners is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. Furthermore, the respondent no.2 has failed to consider the fact that the petitioner is the sole bread- earner, has serious financial constraints and the fact that the petitioner remained in custody for 15 months and lastly that the authorities should have taken into consideration the judgment of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate vide which the petitioner was sentenced only to undergo the imprisonment already undergone by him, and a fine of Rs.30,000/- was imposed upon the petitioner. In the light of all these special circumstances, the order of the authorities is liable to be quashed.

(3.) On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that as is evident from the record, the petitioner is a frequent traveller and at the time when the searches were conducted upon the petitioners, nearly 15 air-tickets were taken into custody. The petitioner is not a carrier but is carrying on this activity of smuggling of foreign currency. It is also contended that there is apparent contradiction in the stand taken by the petitioner in regard to his financial constraints and the kind of money that has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The judgment of the Magistrate was duly looked into by the authorities and it is an order of conviction, and thus is of no advantage to the petitioner.