ASSISTANT COLLECTOR CUSTOMS Vs. CHUNI LAL KEWAL KRISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 2 -8 -1991 passed by Sessions Judge, Kangra, in Criminal Revision No. 2 of 1991, dated 2 -8 -1991, dismissing the revision of the petitioner against the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharamshala, ordering the release of the seized gold.

(2.) Raiding party consisting of many officials of the Central Excise Division, Pathankot, acting on an information, raided the business premises of respondent No. 1. At the time of raid, respondent No. 2 was present in the business premises, being the partner of the firm. Search of the business premises did not reveal any contraband gold. However, from the residential premises of respondent No. 2, contraband articles of gold were recovered. The total weight of the contraband gold was 1570.10 grams, valuing Rs. 4,53,992.50, recovered from a locked wooden almirah of respondent No. 2. After the recovery of the gold, respondent No. 2 voluntarily gave statement under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 (Ex. PA).

(3.) A complaint was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra, under section 85 of the Gold Control Act, 1968 and section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner was represented through counsel in the Court at Dharamshala. The counsel failed to intimate the petitioner the requirement of his being present on any date for the purpose of recording of his evidence nor was the petitioner informed about the production of departmental witnesses Resultantly, on 15 -11 -1990, the petitioner was not present but Inspector Shri Amrish Gautam of the department was present. The case was at the stage of recording of the pre -charge evidence. Witnesses were not present Consequently, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, closed the evidence of the petitioner and discharged the accused on 15 -11 -1990. The trial Court further ordered that the case property be returned to the person(s) who gets a declaration of entitlement from the Civil Court, since several other persons had laid claim to the same before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Accordingly, collusive suits for declaration and for mandatory injunction, claiming to be entitled to the possession and ownership of different parts and portions of the confiscated gold, were filed in the Court of Senior Sub -Judge, Kangra. In the suits, respondent No 2 has been arrayed as defendant. Against the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, dated 15 -11 -1990, revision was filed before the Sessions Judge, Kangra. It was dismissed on 2~8 -U9l. The order of Chief Judicial Magistrate was also modified in respect of the return of the seized gold by directing the petitioner to hand over the same to the respondents.