MATHEW FERNANDEZ Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant in the appeal. The suit was for return of the articles seized from the residence of the plaintiff on 24.7.1984 or the value of the same estimated at Rs. 3,50,000/- and compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- for illegal detention and other . mental agony caused on account of the action of the respondents as stated in paragraph 24 of the plaint. The plaintiff paid a court fee of Rs. 50,000/- in the Trial Court but the appeal was filed as an indigent person. The Trial Court granted a decree for Rs. 38,783.05 which was the admitted amount due to the plaintiff with 12% interest from the date of suit till realisation.

(2.) The averments in the plaint are as follows. The plaintiff came to India on 31.5.1984 after ten years of employment abroad. He brought back some goods used by him. The Customs Preventive Intelligence Unit conducted search of his residence on 24.7.1984 and seized the items shown in the plaint schedule. Notice to show cause as to why those articles should not be seized was given to the plaintiff and he replied. The objection was overruled on 25.3.1985. On 9.4.1986, the Collector of Customs allowed the appeal of the plaintiff and ordered return of goods (items 3 to 15 without any payment and items 1 and 2 on payment of Rs. 4,000/-). The plaintiff was given 60 days from 9.4.1986 to redeem the goods. On 12.5.1986, the plaintiff filed requisition for return. No action was taken on the requisition. The plaintiff was threatened with consequences like fresh search and seizure. The plaintiff visited the office of defendants 2 and 3 on 13.5.1986, 14.5.1986, 15.5.1986 and 16.5.1986. But he was not informed of the state of affairs of the goods confiscated. On 24.7.1986, the plaintiff filed O.P. No. 3813 of 1986 before this Court. It was dismissed and plaintiff filed W.A. No. 440 of 1986 which was allowed to be withdrawn without prejudice to his right to move otherwise before the appropriate authority. In paragraph 24 of the plaint, the plaintiff has stated that the search and seizure were not done bonafide. For items 3 to 15, duty was paid at the time when residence was shifted and the records were shown to the Officers when they seized the goods. But they refused to yield to the request for return of goods. Their action was illmotivated. The plaintiff and members of the family were detained in the office of the 2nd defendant and they were physically tortured. They were detained from 7 p.m. on 24.7.1984 till 3.30 a.m. on 25.7.1984. Even after the order of the Collector of Customs to release the goods the plaintiff was asked to appear before the defendants and he was threatened of dire consequences if he pursued his attempt to get back the articles. Even after the plaintiff filed his requisition for return of goods the defendants with mala fide motive cooked up records to show that the same was sold. The sale was without notice to the plaintiff and notice was mandatory under the Customs Act. The plaintiff is entitled to the costs for moving the High Court for reliefs twice. The unauthorised search and seizure has affected the reputation of the plaintiff. He has been branded as a smuggler. The malicious intention is clear from the sale of the goods even after direction by the Collector to return the goods.

(3.) In the written statement, the seizure of goods was admitted. The market value of the goods was assessed at Rs. 58,080/- and the ex-duty value was fixed at Rs. 23,232/- The statement of the plaintiff and his wife were recorded on 25.8.1984. Show cause notice was issued on 16.1.1985. Reply was filed on 28.1.1985. Personal hearing was conducted on 4.3.1985. The order was passed on 25.3.1985 by the 2nd defendant. The appellate order was received on 23.4.1986. According to the defendants the goods were kept in the Intelligence Unit since they were involved in one of the long pending cases. They were sold between 3.5.1986 and 1.7.1986. The physical detention and torture of plaintiff and members of his family were denied. The contention that defendants cooked up records to show sale of goods was denied. The goods were sold for Rs. 42,783.05. In the reply, no objection was filed for the value of the goods shown in the notice at Rs. 58,080/-. The averments regarding damage to reputation of plaintiff is only imaginary. The defendants 2 and 3 had agreed to return sale proceeds after deducting Rs. 4,000/-. The plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit.