1978 (9) TMI 73 - HC - Central Excise

Court upholds gold seizure legality, finding authorized officer's action valid. Collector's orders based on evidence.

MOHANLAL AND BHAVARLAL JAIN Versus GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND OTHERS

MOHANLAL AND BHAVARLAL JAIN Versus GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND OTHERS - 1986 (23) E.L.T. 116 (A. P.) Issues:1. Seizure of gold by unauthorized personnel under Rule 126(L) of Defence of India Rules.2. Authorization of Deputy Superintendent of Central Excise to seize gold under Rule 126(L)(2) of Defence of India Rules.3. Validity of orders based on evidence and admissibility of confession under Section 26 of the Evidence Act.4. Allegation of Collector acting as both judge and prosecutor.Analysis:1. The appeal challenged the legality of the seizure of gold by the Sub-Inspector of Police, contending that he was not authorized under Rule 126(L) of the Defence of India Rules. However, the Deputy Superintendent of Central Excise, who was duly authorized, ultimately seized the gold. The court held that the initial act by the police officer did not constitute seizure, and as the authorized officer later seized the gold, the seizure was deemed legal.2. The appellant argued that the Deputy Superintendent of Central Excise was not authorized in writing to seize the gold under Rule 126(L) of the Defence of India Rules. The court noted a government notification authorizing the Deputy Superintendent to exercise such powers, rejecting the argument that the notification did not amount to written authorization as required by the rule.3. The appellant contended that the orders of the Government of India and the Collector of Excise lacked evidence and were based solely on an inadmissible confession made by the appellant. The court held that the Collector's order was not solely based on the confession but on other evidence as well. The court found the Collector's conclusion regarding the nature of the gold to be valid and not solely reliant on the confession.4. Lastly, it was argued that the Collector acted as both a judge and a prosecutor by relying on his own opinion about the nature of the seized articles. The court rejected this contention, stating that the Collector had the jurisdiction to make such a determination based on his observation of the articles. The court likened this to a judge making local inspections or assessing signatures in other legal matters, concluding that the Collector did not overstep his role. The judgment of the lower court was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.