Perversity in writ review of confiscation rejected as evidence and confession supported the finding against the claimant.

Confiscation of nine gold coins was challenged on the ground that the finding was perverse and open to interference under Article 226. The authorities had evaluated the evidence, treated the petitioner's explanation as an afterthought, and relied on the petitioner's confession and the material on record. On that basis, the Court found no perversity in the conclusion and held that extraordinary writ jurisdiction was not warranted. The confiscation was therefore upheld and no interference was called for.

---

---

Issues: Whether the finding sustaining confiscation of the nine gold coins was perverse and liable to interference in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The authorities had considered the evidence and rejected the petitioner's version as an afterthought. The finding rested on the petitioner's confession and the material on record, and the Court found no basis to hold that the conclusion was perverse. Interference in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction was therefore unwarranted.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the nine gold coins was upheld and no interference was called for against the petitioner.

---