BABULAL AMTHAI AL MEHTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks, in this writ petition, to quash the order of confiscation of the articles seized from his residence from Calcutta by a search of his premises on 4th May, 1955. The order of confiscation was passed by the Collector of Customs on 12th September, 1955, the appeal against which was dismissed by the Central Board of Revenue on 27th July, 1957, a further revision to the Government of India having been dismissed on 12th March, 1962.

(2.) On 4th May, 1955, the Rummaging Inspector (Intelligence), along with some others, searched the premises of the petitioner 32, Sir Hari Ram Goenka Street, Calcutta, on the strength of a search warrant issued by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta. The petitioner was asked to produce whatever precious stones were in his possession whereupon he stated that whatever stones he had were kept in the steel almirah. The steel almirah was also searched but no stones were found therein. According to the petitioner his first reaction, on hearing knocks and shouts at the door with great force, was that it was a raid of robbers and he hurriedly kept the pouch in which he used to carry jewels to the market inside the jacket for safety. When after a search 475 diamonds and 11 precious stones, which he had kept and wrapped in the jacket, were taken out of the wall almirah, he was asked to make a statement, which was recorded and signed by him. He did not then mention about the name of his brother (as one from whom he got stones and diamonds from Bombay) or the name of Panna Lal Chopra of Calcutta (from whom he received the balance of the diamonds). The petitioners' present explanation is that he did not wish to get them into trouble and, therefore, made no reference to them; he also gave a reduced value of the diamonds, to minimise any possible offence. He was then produced before the Assistant Collector of Customs,Calcutta, who interrogated him further since the goods were suspected to be smuggled goods; the petitioner was asked to produce further evidence in support of his innocence, namely, that the diamonds were not smuggled goods and if he was not the owner to prove how he acquired those diamonds.

(3.) The petitioner complains that inspite of repeated requests he was not supplied with a copy of his statement until 21st November, 1956 when the petitioner consulted his attorneys and made enquiries through them in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta and learnt that the fifth respondent had applied under section 172 of the Sea Customs Act to the Chief Presidency Magistrate on the ground that he had reason to believe that dutiable and/or prohibited goods were secreted in his premises and had requested for a warrant of search for his premises. It is contended that without applying his judicial mind the learned Magistrate issued the said search warrant on account of the information laid before him concerning illegal importation of the goods and it had become necessary to enquire into the suspected offence. Request made on the 7th May, 1955, and again on 16th May, 1955, for the supply of reasons for the seizure was not complied with. The petitioner wrote to his attorney on 7th May, 1955 that he got 464 diamonds from M/s Ratilal Arnratlal & Co. of 89, Jhavari Bazar, Bombay-2, for sale in the Calcutta market, diamonds which had been brought from Bombay through his brother Jayantilal and that he had received II pieces of diamonds from Pannalal Chopra of Calcutta. He stated that the other synthetic stones belonged to him personally.