LAWS(PAT)-1978-7-26

KASHI RAM DHANDHANIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On July 26, 1978
KASHI RAM DHANDHANIA Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH ASSISTANT COLLECTOR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is for quashing the entire proceeding of P. S. Case no. 65 of 1968 pending in the Court of Shrimati Rekha Kumari, Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur, in which charge has been framed for contravening the provisions of Rules 126-C (1) and 126-P (2)(vi) of the Defence of India Rules.

(2.) On the 25th May, 1965 Mr. D. K. Sinha, Inspector of Central Excise, Patna searched the premises of Tara Jewellery House, Bhagalpur, belonging to the petitioner and recovered 429.900 gms of primary gold and 963,500 gms of gold ornaments, both above 14 carat. Again on the 26th May, 1965 gold ornaments weighing 7428 800 gms of gold and gold ornaments were seized from the residence of the petitioner. On these allegations a petition of complaint (Annexure 1) was filed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Patna. against the petitioner and his son, Narayan Prasad Dhandania for having committed offences under Rule 126 (c) (d) (h) of the Defence of India Rules. On the same day cognizance was taken and the petitioner and his son, Narayan Prasad Dhandania were summoned for trial.

(3.) Nine witnesses were examined by the prosecution, and charges were framed against the petitioner on 11.8.1970 the son of the petitioner, Narayan Prasad Dhandania was, however, discharged. Copies of the charges have been filed along with this application marked Annexures 2 and 2/1. It seems that the petitioner moved this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous 4160 of 1975 for the quashing of the charge, but it was summarily dismissed with certain observations on 7.11.1975. On 29.11.1975 the trial court passed certain orders and for that the petitioner came to this Court for clarification, and necessary orders were passed on 22.12.1975. The petitioner prayed for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court which was rejected on 8.1.1976. The case of the petitioner is that no progress was made in the case for about two years and, therefore, this application has been filed for the quashing of the proceedings.