DEVI PARSAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following facts furnish the background of the case : On December 25, 1975, the petitioners in pursuance of a scheme published in the Government of India Gazette dated October 8, 1975, for voluntary disclosure of income and wealth made a disclosure to the Income-tax Commissioner, Patiala, to the effect that they had 113 gold biscuits, each weighing 10 tolas and 20 guineas. On the basis of this disclosure, they paid taxes to the tune of Rs. 1,25,000. Later on 5-1-1976 the petitioners reported theft of this gold to the police at Narwana, district Jind. As a result of the investigation that followed, the police prosecuted 9 persons resulting in their conviction. With the conclusion of the trial, the petitioners applied to the trial Court for the return of the gold in question. As a result of this, the trial Magistrate, vide his order dated March 16, 1978 directed the delivery of the gold back to the petitioners. Against, this order of the Magistrate, the custom authorities preferred an appeal before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jind. While upholding the order of the trial Court, the appellate Court vide its order dated September 20, 1979, Annexure P. 6 gave the following directions :

(2.) STRANGE as it my look, the above noted directions of the Court have not been carried out so far neither by the Treasury Officer in whose custody the gold in question is stated to be nor by the custom authorities in investigating the matter any further. This is in spite of the fact that during those years the petitioners made 3 applications (Annexure P. 2, P. 8 and P. 9) either claiming the return of the gold in question or seeking the permission of the Gold Control Administrator to convert the gold-which undoubtedly is primary gold in the light of the ordinance under which the disclosure had been made i. e. Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth (Amendment) Ordinance, 1975. By virtue of Clauses 15 (A and B) of this Ordinance, the petitioners undisputably became entitled to either sell the gold to any licensed dealer under intimation to Gold Control Officer of the rank of Assistant Collector of Central Excise or Customs Department before the first date of February, 1976 or to convert the same into ornaments by making a declaration to that effect in the prescribed form in view of Sub-sections (1) and (8) of Section 16 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. But somehow, none of the authorities chose to decide those applications or to give relief sought for by the petitioners. Thus as a result of last resort, the petitioners have filed this petition for seeking a Mandamus to the respondent-authorities to decide the above-noted applications of theirs, i. e. Annexure P. 2, P. 8 and P. 9 on merits within a stipulated period and for the return of the gold in the light of the directions contained in the orders of the Judicial Courts i. e. Annexures P. 1, P. 6 and P. 9 and for a further relief in the light of Clause (ii) of Section 15-B of the Ordinance referred to above i. e. Ordinance No. 23 of 1975.

(3.) ALL that is being said on behalf of the respondent-authorities is that the Customs authorites have yet to investigate the matter with regard to the origin or the markings on the gold in question with a view to make up their mind as to what extent the gold has to be released to the petitioners ; therefore, the same be not handed over to the petitioners. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length, I find no merit in the stand taken by the respondents.