VISHWA NATH KHANNA Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution for an appropriate writ quashing the order of extension of period for issuing show cause notice issued on 12th September, 1974 by Mr. M. S. Mehta, Collector of Customs & Central Excise.

(2.) The material facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner is a citizen of India and resident of New Delhi. He obtained a passport issued at Kuwait on 26th August, 1971 and travelled from Delhi to Bangkok on 21st December, 1973 and returned to India and landed at Palam Airport on 3rd January, 1974 by Lufthansa flight. On arrival at Airport he presented himself for Customs clearance. His accompanied baggages consisted of four packages including a hand-bag. He also declared that he was expecting some other unaccompanied baggage and on his declaration landing certificate was granted to him. On the same date two unaccompanied packages arrived at the Palam Airport from Hongkong booked on 2nd January, 1974 ; and other two packages arrived on 4th January, 1974 which were also booked on 2nd January, 1974. All these four packages received in Delhi were sent by Vishwa Nath and consigned to 'self.' They were made over to the Customs Department, who called upon the petitioner to obtain the release of the packages. But the petitioner did not appear in spite of being summoned, until about two months' later on 15th March, 1974 when he appeared before the Superintendent of Customs and made a statement that he had misplaced the landing certificate and that the packages offered to him for delivery were not owned by him and he declined to have the packages examined in his presence. The packages turned out to contain some goods the import of which was prohibited. The result is that the petitioner had disowned any connection with the four packages in dispute and so he did not mind their confiscation, if necessary, but if he admitted himself to be associated with them, the question of imposition of penalty and his prosecution for the offence would have arisen prominently. On 12th September, 1974 the Collector passed the order (annexure F), which reads as follows :

(3.) At the time of admission, notice was issued to the respondents to show cause why the petition be not admitted and the respondents filed their counter affidavit to which the petitioner filed a rejoinder. Later on the petition was admitted and the parties indicated that they did not want to file any fresh pleadings and the ones already filed be taken on the record. Since the petitioner had also been prosecuted, an application was made to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for early hearing of the petition and so this has been listed for hearing before us.