M THANKAPPAN ACHARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner. Sri. M. Thankappan Achari. is a licensed sold dealer. On 9-10-1964 his residential house in Attingal Municipality was searched by the officers of the Central Excise Divisional Office. Trivandrum. on the strength of authorisation issued by the Assistant Collector. Central Excise. In the course of the search which lasted from 8. 00 a. m. to 4. 00 p. m. 28 articles of gold weighing in all. 4629. 250 grams. were seized in the presence of witnesses for investigation under Rule 126l (2) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962. A search mahazar was prepared in the presence of witnesses and the articles were weighed. It is admitted that the sold of which the articles were made, was above 14 carat in purity. In a statement, to the Assistant Collector dated 9-10-1964. the petitioner admitted that about 2000 grams were made for his family use. and the remaining were gold ornaments brought to his house from his workshop at the time of the introduction of the Gold Control Rules. He admitted also that some of the ornaments seized were received by him from the public for repairing and polishing. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner under Rules 126-B (1) (a) (i ). 126-0 (1) (a) (ii) 126-F (1 ). 126-G (1 ). 126-H (1) of the Defence of India Rules of 1962. and he was required to show cause against confiscation under Rule 126-M. In his reply dated 13-1-1965 the petitioner stated that all the articles seized were acquired before 19-10-1960. that the statement dated 910-1964 was not voluntary but was the result of constraint exercised by the Officers of the Department and that the admission contained therein should not be used against him. At the enquiry. the petitioner was represented by Counsel. Sri Napoleon and Sri Nanu the attestors of the seizure Mahazar were examined. They both have spoken to the statement having been given by the petitioner. Sri Napoleon deposed to having got repaired one necklace of his wife through the petitioner and also having given 2 bangles and a chain for polishing. The ornaments thus given were of 22 carat purity. There was evidence of one Noohu Kannu Asan. Proprietor. Hameediya Motor Service, Alancode for having given ornaments for repairs to the petitioner.

(2.) THE Collector of Customs and Central Excise adjudicated the matter by his order Ext. P. 1 and held that the statement dated 9-10-1964 given by the petitioner was voluntary; that the petitioner admittedly was receiving ornaments for repairs and polishing but did not remember the names of the persons from whom the ornaments were received: that he was not able to point out which were the ornaments kept for family use: that the pattern of the seized ornaments, and their weight and quantity. negatived the case that they were his family ornaments many of them being of the type generally worn by Christians and Muslims; that the petitioner had no accounts to show the articles received for repairs nor could he identify the articles received for repairs or segregate them from those owned by his family. On this footing the adjudicating authority was of the opinion that the seized articles were part of the petitioner's stock-in-trade kept in his house as a dealer without giving the statement of declaration, and without accounting for them in the statutory registers. He accordingly adjudicated the petitioner as having contravened the provisions of Rules 126-B- (1-A) 126-O. 126-F, 126g and 126h of the Defence of India Rules. 1962 and ordered confiscation of the gold ornaments seized. An appeal preferred against the order was dismissed by Ext. P-8 order. The petitioner seeks to quash Exts. P-l and P-8 orders.

(3.) IT was contended that the search and seizure of the gold from the dwelling house of the petitioner was illegal and contrary to the Rules. Rule 126-L (2) empowers any person authorised by Central Government to enter and search any premises not being a refinery or establishment etc. . and to seize any gold in respect of which he suspects that any provision of the Gold Control Rules has been or is being or is about to be contravened. This is sufficient to authorise the search of the petitioner's dwelling house.