PANNALAL BADRILAL Vs. COLLECTOR OF LAND CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, a Hindu Mitakshara Joint family firm known as "Messrs. Pannalal Badrilal carry on business at Dalimgaon, West Dinajpur. They feel aggrieved by an order passed by the Collector of Land Customs, Calcutta whereby he confiscated certain pieces of gold belonging to the petitioner firm under the provisions of section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 , read with section 23A of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1000 on the said firm.

(2.) The circumstances leading to the order of confiscation and imposition of the fine are hereinafter briefly recounted. The petitioner firm allege that they carry on business in gold and silver and in that business locally purchase old gold ornaments, gold mohurs and gold bars, in retail and then sell the same in Calcutta and other places at a profit. On August 13, 1957, the firm sent out one Manindra Nath Nandy, one of their employees, with about 65 tolas of gold with instruction to him to carry the same to Calcutta. The said Manindra Nath Nandy on his way to Calcutta was apprehended by a Land Customs Officer at Manickchak Ghat, on the suspicion that he was carrying smuggled gold. On searching his person the gold that he was carrying was recovered, although he had previously denied that he was carrying gold. The gold thus recovered from him was seized and a detention receipt was given to him.

(3.) At the time of the search and seizure, the said Manindra Nath Nandy made a statement before the Land Customs Officer to the effect that he was an employee of the petitioner firm and was carrying gold under instruction from his employer; the gold that he was carrying had been purchased by his employer from hats frequented by Pakistani people for sale of gold; and purchases were all recorded in the books of his employer. He further stated that he had definite instruction from his employer to deny that he was in possession of gold, if questioned by the Land Customs authorities. He also admitted that under such instructions he was carrying gold concealed in his private parts. The aforesaid statement was sought to be got rid of by the petitioner firm, in the affidavit-in-reply, as a statement procured from Manindra Nath Nandy under threat of torture. Ultimately, however, the learned Advocate for the petitioner firm thought it proper not to try that sort of explanation of the statement made by Manindra Nath Nandy and withdrew the allegation that such statement had been procured from him by threat. I have, therefore, to proceed on the basis that the aforesaid statement was made by Manindra Nath Nandy as a voluntary statement.