KUSUM SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's grievance is that pursuant to search and seizure proceedings conducted by the Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), gold jewellery and other like valuables were detained; they were found in the locker maintained in the Corporation Bank, Mayur Vihar Branch. The search and seizure proceedings took place on 07.07.2017. The DRI officials apparently also seized the key; the contents of the locker are jewellery etc, and continue to be in the locker. The DRI inventorized the jewellery. The petitioner has sought appropriate directions for the release of the key as well as the articles; she cites section 110(2) of the Customs Act. The respondent/DRI in the counter affidavit alleges that the premises of the petitioner were searched on account of information gathered that there was extensive fraudulent drawback by credits on account of fictitious export of ready-made garments. It is stated that the investigations on this aspect are continuing and are at an advanced stage. As far as the petitioner's complaint with respect to jewellery and locker is concerned, the DRI alleges that she has failed to indicate the source of funds to support the purchase of jewellery inventorized in the panchnama dated 07.07.2017. On this aspect she was silent, when she made a request for release of the articles. The other allegation which has been made is with respect to the suppression of the information regarding shares in which the petitioner had stake.

(2.) The petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Jatin Ahuja v. UOI wherein the effect of Section 110 and obligation of the revenue to ensure that a show cause notice under Section 124 is issued within a stipulated time was explained. The Court cited the judgment in Asstt. Collector Of Customs v. Charan Das Malhotra 1972 AIR SC 689 ; J.K. Bardolia Mills v. M.L. Khunger,Dy.Collector (1994) 5 SCC 332 and also analyzed the provisions of Section 110 as well as Section 110A. It considered the judgment of the Bombay High Court Jayant Hansraj Shah v. Union of India 2009 (1) Bom CR 474 which was relied upon by the Revenue. The Court held as follows:

(3.) In the present case, the key was seized and consequently articles were detained on 07.07.2017. Since then, the petitioner has not been afforded access to the jewellery. Though it is not a direct seizure or detention the effect of such action is that the petitioner has been deprived of the use of her property. The period provided under Section 110 i.e. six months elapsed, the Revenue could have - if it chose to extend that period provided the powers were resorted to within the six month period. Even that option was not exercised. Consequently, upon the expiry of one year (from 17.7.2017 to 16.07.2018), the one year period had ended. The petitioner is, therefore, clearly entitled to release of all the articles in her locker as well as the locker key. Since the customs authorities have inventorized these goods, it is open for them to continue with the adjudication proceedings as and when they issue show cause notice. The writ petition succeeds; the respondents are hereby directed to ensure that the key of the locker in question seized from the petitioner's premises are returned within two weeks. She shall have the right to utilize the jewellery which was found in the locker during the search. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms.