2002 (4) TMI 922

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....usiness premises and seizing the gold and silver articles from his business premises and also initiation of confiscation proceedings. 2.. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the business premises of the petitioner were inspected on March 8, 2002 by the respondents and it continued the whole of the night of March 8, 2002 and three orders have been passed on the same day, viz., relating to the seizure of the gold and silver articles, a notice proposing to confiscate the articles seized and the confiscation order. The learned counsel further submits that though the respondents are entitled to search and seize the articles, in so far as passing an order of confiscation is concerned, as provided under section 28(6) of the A.P.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rticles giving time to the petitioner till March 15, 2002 to submit his explanation and therefore, the allegation made by the petitioner that he has not been given any opportunity and the respondents have violated the procedure as contemplated under section 28(6) of the Act is far from reality and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 4.. In the light of the submissions made by both the counsel, the point for consideration before us is, whether the order dated March 8, 2002 passed by the respondents relating to confiscation of the articles, which were seized on March 8, 2002, could be sustainable in the background of a corrigendum issued by the respondents on March 9, 2002. 5.. Admittedly, the search and seizure was held on March 8, 2....