SAMARENDRAJIT SHAW Vs. COLLECTOR OF EXCISE CALCUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India and it is directed against the order No. 648 R. E. dated 25th of October, 1971 passed by the Collector of Excise, Calcutta as well 3s against the show cause notice dated 24th December 1970 issued by the Collector of Excise, Calcutta in Misc. Case No. 61 (F. L.) of 1970-71.

(2.) The petitioner is the proprietor of foreign liquor 'off' shop under the name and style of M. L. Shaw and Co. at 15, Ashutosh Mukherjee Road, Bhowanipore, Calcutta and the petitioner has been running the said business under licence granted, by the Collector of Excise, Calcutta, the respondent No. 1 from year to year for more than 43 years. The petitioner furnished a security deposit of more than Rs. 10,000/- in cash including a lump fee of Rs. 300/- for the year 1971-72 in the Calcutta Collectorate Treasury in iavour of the Excise Department for the E. L. 'off' licence for the said shop. On November 23, 1970, the respondent No. 2, Utpal Chakraborti. the then Inspector of Excise, Bhowanipore range, inspected his shop at about 2.20 P. M. At that time the salesman Mathurmohon Shaw wag alone present in the said shop. On the demand of the Inspector the said salesman handed over to him the Inspection Report Book as well as Excise Daily Account Book. The Inspector after going through the daily Account Book enquired of him as to why the sale of liquor of 21st and 22nd of November, 1970 were not entered in the said Daily Account Book whereon the salesman Mathurmohan Shaw intimated him that Pradip Kumar Dey who was incharge of transferring the sale figures of liquor bottles in the daily Excise Account Book from the daily Excise Ledger Book of the excise shop disappeared suddenly from the shop after closing the daily Account Book on 20-11-1970. The said salesman also stated that on 22nd November, 1970, the said salesman Pradip Kumar Dey sent a letter to the petitioner in the evening intimating that he had to leave the shop without informing anybody as he was frightened by some antisocial people on the night of 20th November. 1970 as he refused to Rive them liquor bottles without payment of the price for the same. The Inspector, therefore, asked the salesman to produce the daily Excise Ledger Book and daily Excise Stock Book of the shop and he accordingly handed over the same to him. The petitioner was not present in the shop at the time. The Inspector, the respondent No. 2, looked into the last entries of sales of liquors as well as of receipts in the daily Excise Ledger Book and also daily Excise Stock Book of the shop which were made uptodate.

(3.) The Inspector, thereafter, directed the salesman Mathur Mohan Shaw to show arid count the liquor bottles (whisky in the Altnirah) and the salesman began to count the same. But all of a sudden it was stopped by the Inspector who asked him to open the lock of the collapsible gate of the godown in the shop room. The salesman opened the godown and started showing him the bottles lying in the case of whisky. The Inspector, however, asked the salesman that his help was not required in the counting of bottles there in the godown and directed him to send the cooli-bearer in the godown. The salesman followed the bearer inside the godown and reminded the Inspector that the responsibility of showing and counting of the stock of liquors to him lay on the salesman and as such the salesman should be allowed to be present at the time of counting the stock of liquor bottles, but, unfortunately the Inspector refused to allow him to be there and asked him to go out. The salesman then told the Inspector that he would report the matter to the licensee and would call him over the phone but the Inspector told him that there was no necessity of informing the licensee. The salesman, however, told the petitioner aver the phone about this. Subsequently, Dipendra Lal Shaw, the Sales Manager of the said shop also came and requested the Inspector to permit him to be present to help him to count the liquor bottles but the said request was turned down by the Inspector. The petitioner, thereafter, came to the shop and found the Salesman as well as the Sales Manager standing outside the godown as they were prevented from entering into the godown for counting and verifying the stock of liquors. On the direction of the petitioner the salesman and the Sales Manager counted the stock of liquors (whisky) and found that the same tallied with the stock of liquors as entered in the daily Excise Ledger Book and Excise Stock Book of the shop. The petitioner's son Dipendra Lal Shaw then challenged the incorrect recording of figures by the Inspector and requested him to recount and verify the stock of whisky bottles in their presence. The Inspector Sri Utpal Chakraborti, however, declined to recount the stock of liquors or to verify his counting of liquor bottles as recorded by him, The Inspector hurriedly completed the writing of the Inspection Report on the Inspection Book and asked the petitioner to sign the Report Book for the alleged irregularities. The petitioner, therefore, expressed his inability to sign. On the basis of the said inspection report the Misc. Case No. 61 (F. L.) of 1970-71 was started and the petitioner was served with a notice No. 163 (F. L.) dated 24th of December, 1970 asking the petitioner to show cause within seven days of the receipt of this notice to explain as to why his licence would not be cancelled or action otherwise would not be taken against him for the irregularities mentioned therein as he violated the condition No. 15 of the licence. This notice has been marked as Annex. D to the petition.