MUNI LAL Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short tacts of the case, as averred by the petitioner in the writ petition, are as follows:

(2.) ON March 3, 1970, he (the petitioner) travelled in a new grey colour Ambassador car, belonging to his son, from Moga to Amritsar. He had then carried G. C. notes of Rs. 1,74,000/in an attache case in the car with a view to purchase house at Amritsar. The car was driven by Sadhu Singh. When he reached Adda Harike, Sarvshri Gurdev Singh, Kulwant Singh and Joginder Singh Police Officers slopped the car and wanted to board it for Amritsar. The petitioner did not allow them to do so and this led to exchange of words between them. The aforesaid Police Officers, therefore, searched the car and took the attache case along with the G. C. notes of Rupees 1,74,000/- therein, and also some other money from the person of the petitioner without preparing any inventory. They took the car, the aforesaid G. C. notes, the petitioner and Sadhu Singh to Police Station 'b' Division Amritsar. He was released on bail on March 7, 1970. He then learnt that the recovered G. C. notes were wrongly shown to be of Rs, 1,57,000/-, (hereinafter called the G. C. notes) instead of Rs. 1,74,000/-, and that the Police had planted on him 8 bars of gold weighing 10 tolas each (hereinafter called the gold), 10 kilograms of opium and had also planted an unlicensed pistol on the person of Sadhu Singh. On March 9, 1970, an officer of the Customs Department, Amritsar, moved an application to the Court of Magistrate First Class, Amritsar, for taking over the gold and the G. C. notes. The Magistrate directed the Police Authorities, by his order dated March 21, 1970, to hand over the gold and the G. C. notes to the Customs Department, and the said Department took the gold and G. C. notes from the Police, Amritsar, on March 28, 1970. Sadhu Singh was prosecuted under Section 25 of the Arms Act, but the said prosecution was withdrawn on March 20, 1971. The petitioner and Sadhu Singh were prosecuted under Section 9 of the Opium Act. The said prosecution was withdrawn as against Sadhu Singh, but permission to withdraw the case as against the petitioner was not allowed by the Court. He (the petitioner) was, however, acquitted In the said opium case on August 2, 1973. The Customs Department did not issue show cause notice for confiscation of the G. C. notes or the gold within the period of six months after the seizure of the same as contemplated by the provisions of law. The Collector of Customs (hereinafter called the Collector) had, however, on March 19, 1971, passed an ex parte order (Annexure P-3, hereinafter called the extension order), extending the initial period of six months up to March 27, 1971, for issuing show-cause notice. Thereafter, on March 22, 1971, the Deputy Collector Customs issued notice (Annexure 5, hereinafter called the show cause notice) to the petitioner and Sadhu Singh to show cause as to why the G. C. notes be not confiscated and personal penalty be not imposed upon them. He (the Deputy Collector) had also issued another notice on March 22, 1971, to the petitioner and Sadhu Singh to show cause as to why the gold be not confiscated and personal penalty be not imposed upon them. The petitioner had submitted his replies to the said notices on April 6, 1971. Ho (the petitioner) received information from the Customs Department that the Collector had fixed May 19, 1971, as the date of hearing. He appeared on that date and filed written objections before the Collector. He further submitted representation by post to the respondent, but he did not receive any response. Therefore, in this petition the petitioner impeached the validity of the extension order and of the show cause notices with the allegations that the extension order was invalid and ultra vires since the same was passed after expiry of the initial period of six months provided in Sub-section (2) of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter called the Act), and that the show cause notices were time-barred and had been passed without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction. So, he claimed (i) writ of cer-tiorari for quashing the extension order and the show cause notices, (ii) writ of mandamus directing the respondent to pay back the G. C. notes to him, and (iii) writ of prohibition restraining the respondent from continuing the proceedings relating to confiscation of the G. C. notes and the gold and for imposing personal penalty.

(3.) THE written statement was filed by Shri B. K. Seth, Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Chandigarh. The main facts of the case were admitted. It was, however, pleaded that the G. C. notes of Rs. 1,57,000/-and 8 bars of gold, weighing 80 tolas, had been recovered from the petitioner by the Police and that the aforesaid G. C. notes had been obtained by the Customs Department from the Police under orders of the Magistrate on March 28, 1970. It was further pleaded that on appeal against the acquittal of the petitioner, recorded in the opium case by the Magistrate, was admitted by this Court and the same is pending, and that the Income-tax Authorities had served a notice on the respondent, seizing the G. C. notes and other goods and, as such, the same could not be returned to the petitioner. So, all the reliefs claimed by the petitioner were resisted on the ground that the extension order was validly passed and the show cause notices bad been rightly given, and other proceedings relating to adjudication of confiscation of the G. C. notes etc. , and for imposition of personal penalty had been legally instituted.