RANDHIR SINGH Vs. DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS fact giving rise to above mentioned petitions succinctly are that acting on a prior information, the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, New Delhi, intercepted two trucks bearing registration Nos. CHW-4831 and HRN-2341, which had arrived from Junagarh (Gujarat) at Kapas-herea Terminal Tax Post, Delhi and recovered assorted textiles of foreign original wholly or mainly made of synthetic yarns. The textiles were recovered from underneath the bags of onions lodged in the above mentioned two trucks Mal Singh respondent in Criminal Revision No. 131/85 was driving truck No. HRN-2341 while one Harbans Singh was driving vehicle No. ChW-4831. Some other persons, namely, Mohan Lal @ Sona, Rajender Parkash Sharma, Jagdish Singh etc. were also present in those trucks. However, the occupants of the aforesaid trucks could not produce any evidence documentary or otherwise showing lawful import, acquisition, possession etc. of the goods of foreign origin mention above. The value of the said goods was estimated at Rs. 33,87,740/- approximately. The goods were, therefore, seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred as the Act) on the reasonable belief that the same were liable to confiscation under the provisions of the Act. Subsequently, a complaint was instituted against Rajender Parkash Sharma, Mal Singh and Harbans Singh under Section 153(1)(b)(i) of the Act.

(2.) DURING the course of inquiry in the complaint, Randhir Singh-petitioner in Cr.M. (M) No. 496/85 made an application for release of truck No. CHW-4831 claiming to be the registered owner thereof. He, inter alia, contended that he had no knowledge whatsoever of the smuggled goods having been loaded in the said truck. He further pointed out that the truck had been hypothecated with United Commercial bank, Chandigarh Branch, against an advance amount of Rs. 1,89,000/- and most of the said amount was still due from him. So, he prayed for release of the truck or Superdari basis. His application was vehemently opposed by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. It was eventually rejected by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, vide order dated 20th April, 1985. The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate observed in the course of the order that the truck in question had been involved in smuggling activities in a very clandestine manner and textiles worth Rs. 3400,000/- (thirty four lakhs) approximately were allegedly recovered. The second application for release of the truck too (sic) rejected vide order dated 3rd May, 1985. Hence, he has filed Cr.M. (M) No. 496/85 against the aforesaid said order of rejection.

(3.) HENCE , the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence has filed Criminal Revision No. 131/85 against the said order.