KRIPALDAS Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by Kripal Das against the order of the Collector of Central Execise and Land Customs, New Delhi, dated the 14th September, 1959, under Sec. 167 (8) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, read with Sec. 19 thereof and Sec. 23a and 23b of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, by which he directed absolute confiscation of certain gold and Indian and Pakistan currency seized from the house of the petitioner and further imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Sec. 167 (8) of the Sea Customs Act. THIS order was affirmed on appeal by the Central Board of Revenue on the 17th January, 1961, and in revision from the last-mentioned order by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue, New Delhi dated the 4th February, 1963.

(2.) THE material facts leading up to this application may shortly be stated as follows. On having received information that the petitioner had unlawfully imported a large quantity of gold from Pakistan through certain Muslims of border villages and was disposing of the same in bits at Barmer and in Jaipur and that he had also some undisposed of smuggled gold in his residential house, the customs staff at Barmer obtained a search warrant from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Barmer for conducting a search of the petitioner's residential premises. As a result thereof, the following articles were recovered: - (1) Indian currency amounting to Rs. 43, 496/ -. (2) Pakistan currency amounting to Rs. 599/12. (3) 49 soverigns of gold weighing 33 tolas and 3 mashas. (4) Two pieces of gold bearing the stamp of National Bank of India Mogatta and Goldsmith Bullion Brokers, London, weighing 45 tolas and 7-1/2 mashas, and (5) Two pieces of gold without any mark weighing 40 tolas. It seems that the house of Motilal, a cousin of the petitioner at Barmer was also searched on the 9th August, 1957, during the course of which two bars of gold with some Pakistan currency were recovered, and further, the houses of two other persons namely Narsingh Das and Kishanchand and the shop of yet another person Nemichand were also searched as they were suspected to be the associates of the petitioner in his smuggling activities. It is said that certain documentary evidence was forthcoming from the house of Narsingh Das from which it was revealed that upto the date of the search of his house, he had disposed of allegedly smuggled gold of the value of Rs. 1,11,372/6/- which had been sent to him by the petitioner from time to time. It is alleged that during the course of the departmental investigation, the Deputy Superintendent Customs, Barmer, recorded the statement of Nar Singh Das and also of Kripal Das petitioner. Kripaldass' case was that out of the Indian currency of Rs. 43,496/- seized from his house, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- belonged to one Seth Meharchand son of Lakhmi Chand who had deposited the same with him for safe custody and the remaining amount belonged to him personally and had been accounted for in his books. As for the Pakistan currency seized from his house, his version was that it had been brought by his son Deepchand and his brother-in-law Prabhu Lal who had recently come from Pakistan with their families. As respects the 49 gold sovereigns and two pieces of gold bearing the stamp of the National Bank of India, Mogatta and Goldsmith Bullion brokers London, his case was that these did not belong to him but to one Leelchand who had kept a box containing all these goods with him for safe custody. As for the remaining two pieces of gold weighing 40 tolas recovered from his house, he stated that he had brought them with him from Pakistan at the time of his migration to India in 1947. He further stated that these pieces were got melted by him from certain ornaments of his while he was in Pakistan. THE petitioner denied that he was at all engaged in smuggling gold from Pakistan or selling such gold over in this country or that he had associated himself with the aforesaid Narsingh Das or any other person in this connection. It further appears that during the course of this investigation, the petitioner examined Lilaram, Deochand, Shermal and Paras Ram during the period extending from the 5th September to the 12th September, 1957.

(3.) HAVING regard to the findings to which we have come on the aforesaid points, we do not feel called upon to deal with the other points raised by learned counsel for the petitioners which relate to the merits of the case. All that we need say is that it will be open to the petitioner to raise them before the departmental authorities in case it becomes necessary for him to do so. We should also like to make it clear that our judgment in this case shall not be construed as standing in the way of a further and a proper inquiry into the matter on the merits in case the department may think fit to do so.