Confiscation of seized goods and trucks failed where the interception location remained in factual dispute and benefit of doubt applied.

Confiscation of paddy and trucks, and the related penalties, depended on where the interception and seizure actually occurred. The adjudicating authority recorded interception at no-man's land near the border, while the appellants claimed an inland interception and supported that version with affidavits from persons said to be present. Because the factual controversy remained unresolved, the benefit of doubt was extended to the appellants. The confiscation order and penalties were therefore set aside in the four matters covered, with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confiscation of paddy and trucks, together with the penalties imposed, was sustainable when there was a factual controversy regarding the actual place of interception and seizure.

Analysis: The disputed question was whether the trucks were intercepted at no-man's land near the border, as recorded by the adjudicating authority, or at an inland location as claimed by the appellants. The appellants supported their version with affidavits of persons said to be present at the interception. In view of this unresolved factual controversy, the benefit of doubt was held to be available to the appellants.

Conclusion: The confiscation order and the penalties were set aside insofar as the four appeals were concerned, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief.

---