LAWS(PAT)-1983-12-12

GADADHAR SEN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On December 12, 1983
GADADHAR SEN Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing annexures 1, 2 and 3 to this application. Annexure 1 is the order of Collector, Central Excise, Patna, by which he ordered absolute confiscation of gold and gold ornaments weighing 6103.800 grams under Rule 126-M of the Defence of India (Amendment) Rules, 1963, for contravention of Rule 126-I of the said Rules. A personal penalty of Rs. 2,000 was also imposed. Annexure 2 is the appellate order of the Gold Control Administrator. By this order the Administrator directed release of gold ornaments and gold coins contained in items 8 to 13, 19, 20, 22 to 24 of the panchnama. The order for confiscation of other items which related to primary gold as also the order for imposition of personal penalty was upheld. Annexure 3 is the order of the Special Secretary, Government of India, in revision filed by the father of the petitioners Dwarka Nath Sen Panda.

(2.) Facts: The petitioners are sons of one Dwarka Nath Sen, who died during the pendency of the appeal before the Administrator. On 21st April, 1966, officers of the Department of Central Excise, Ranchi, searched the house of the said Dwarka Nath Sen (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner"). In the course of the raid the raiding party discovered a deity of Trijugi Nath installed in one of the rooms. In that room they discovered a secret chamber. That chamber was cemented from above. On breaking the cement flooring they discovered a locked chamber. On opening the lock, they found 24 items of gold and gold ornaments. A list of those items with their respective weights has been mentioned in paragraph 2 of the application. Dwarka Nath Sen had not made any declaration in respect of these articles as required by Rule 126-I of the Defence of India (Amendment) Rules, 1963. Proceeding for their confiscation was, therefore, initiated in terms of Rule 126-M of the said Rules.

(3.) The stand of the petitioner was that all the seized articles belonged to the deity Trijugi Nath and not to the petitioner and, therefore, they were not liable to be seized and confiscated. Reliance was placed by the petitioner on an arpanama (deed of dedication) in respect of several zamindari villages in favour of Trijugi Nathji. The deed was executed by Sona Devi, mother of Dwarka Nath Sen and grandmother of the present petitioners.