N K MUSTAFF Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 29th September, 1958, Shri M. Ramaswamy, a dock passenger from Penang, arrived in India by S. S. Ra)ula. His person and baggage were searched by the Customs authorities and the inner bottom of the leather suit-case, a part of his personal luggage, was ripped open. 100 pieces of wrist watches embedded in the punched holes of card boards, were recovered from the false bottom of the suit-case. Before the seizure Shri M. Ramaswamy claimed that the suit-case was his personal property and he had purchased it about three months ago. After recovery of the watches, however, he stated that the suit-case containing the wrist watches had been handed over to him by one Mr. Ramiah at Penang with instructions to deliver it to the person whose address was written on a slip of paper given to him by the said Mr. Ramiah. The said slip contained the address of "Mohammad Yaseen 244, Linghi Chetty Street. Madras-1." In pursuance of this information the said premises were also searched. The search resulted in a further seizure of

(2.) Mr. Chadha, the learned counsel for the petitioner, says that the above facts do not load to an inference that the petitioner was a "person concerned" in the smuggling of watches. He has relied on Radha Kishan Bhatia v. The Union of India. In that case their Lordships of the Supreme Court interpreted the words 'concerned in any such offence' in the following words-

(3.) Mr. Chadha then argued that the Central Board of Revenue did not give reasons for its decision. I do not agree. The Central Board of Revenue considered the material on the record and mentioned the facts from which the conclusion had been drawn. Mr. Chadha also made a grievance about the omission by the Central Board of Revenue to give a personal hearing to the petitioner. That dues not necessarily violate the principles of natural justice. It is immaterial whether an appellant is audibly heard by the Central Board of Revenue or heard through the medium of meterials on the record. All that is expected of the Central Board of Revenue is to give a hearing to the appellant and that has been done. Mr. Chadha's last complaint was about an observation at the top of the order by the Central Board of Revenue reading-