BIJRAJ Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONS under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavits filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased to call for the records pertaining to the order of the Respondent bearing reference No. D.A. Dis. No. VIII/10/259/57 Cus. (Adj) dated 12-12-1958 and quash the same, so far as the petitioners in these petitions are concerned by the issue of a writ of Certiorari.

(2.) THESE Writ Petitions coming on for hearing upon perusing the petitions and the affidavits filed in support thereof, the common order of the High Court dated 30-4-1959 and made herein and the records relating to the order of the respondent bearing reference No. D.A. Dis. No. VIII/10/259/57 Cus. (Adj) dated 12-12-1958 so far as the petitioner in each of these petitions is concerned and comprised in the return of the Respondent in these petitions to the writ made by the High Court and upon hearing the arguments of Messrs. S.K.L. Ratan and J. Satyanarayana, Advocates for the petitioner in all the petitions and of the Government Pleader on behalf of the Respondent in all the petitions the Court made the following Order Vanechand, the petitioner in W.P. 409 of 1959. and his two sons, Bijraj, petitioner in W.P. 408 of 1959 and Sampathraj, petitioner in W.P. 410 of 1959, were partners of the firm trading in bullion at Vellore under the style of Vanechand and Sons. On 9-11-1957 the residence and the shop of the petitioners at Vellore were searched and a total quantity of 171-7/32 tolas of gold was seized. Of these 50 tolas consisting of five bars of ten tolas, each, were seized from the house, and the rest of the gold was seized from the shop. In the gold seized from the shop there were two bars of ten tolas each. The five bars and two bars of ten tolas each referred to above admittedly bore foreign marks, and Bijraj admitted at that stage that those 70 tolas constituted smuggled gold.

(3.) ULTIMATELY notices were issued to the three petitioners, their clerk Govindaraj, and the four firms at Bangalore to show cause why proceedings should not be taken under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878. There was an enquiry and Shri Bijraj and the four Bangalore merchants were also given the personal hearing they wanted, and their advocates were also heard.