AMRUT RAYOO ANVEKAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging certain orders which have been passed against the petitioner by the appropriate authorities under the Gold (Control) Act as well as under the Customs Act. The facts leading to proceedings which resulted in a penal action being taken against the petitioner must be stated in order to understand what I would regard as the untenable nature of the orders passed against the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner is carrying on the business of a goldsmith under the name and style of M/s. Anvekar Brothers at a place in Bombay. On receiving information that his mother is sick he proceeded to his native place in the then Union Territory of Goa on or about 6th November, 1973. He had a brother by name Gurudas who was left behind to look after the shop. On 12th of November 1973 the petitioner returned to Bombay, his mother having recovered sufficiently enabling him to do so. On return the petitioner found that on 8th of November 1973 a search had been carried out in the premises of the shop and 49 gold bars with foreign marking had been recovered in that raid. Gurudas, the brother of the petitioner who had been left in charge of the shop, made a statement in which he claimed to be the owner of the shop. Another person called Subhash Mayekar, who was present in the shop at the time of the raid, mentioned in his statement that he was present in the shop accidentally and he had nothing to do either with the shop or with the contraband gold found at the time of the raid.

(3.) Show cause notices were issued to Gurudas, the brother of the petitioner, and the said Subhash Mayekar on 26th of April 1974. These notices required them to show cause why penalty should not be imposed upon them under the Gold (Control) Act as well as under the Customs Act and also as to why the gold seized should not be confiscated. Subsequently, the petitioner also was required to give a statement, which he did, and in that statement he had mentioned that he was away in Goa on 6th November, 1973 and he returned to Bombay on 12th November, 1974. The year 1974 was obviously a mistake because the statement itself is prior to 12th of November, 1974. Obviously he meant that he returned to Bombay on 12th of November, 1973. This ought to be emphasised because the Government of India, the revisional authority under the Gold (Control) Act, has taken this fact into consideration as a crucial fact for holding that the petitioner had left the shop in possession of his brother for such a long time which facilitated the Commission of the offence in question by his brother Gurudas.