TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1968 (3) TMI 107
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion of a penalty on him for alleged complicity in the smuggling of gold in pursuance of a notice dated November 16, 1966 issued under s. 112 of the Sea Customs Act, 1962. The appellant's contention is that the threatened proceedings amount to contempt of the magistrate before whom hi.-, trial for offences in connection with the smuggling of gold is imminent are and in violation of the constitutional protection of Art. 20(3) of the- Constitution. The High Court rejected these contentions. The main facts may be stated briefly. On September 14 and 17, 1966, the customs officers raided a number of premises in the city of Bombay and seized 65,860 tolas of foreign gold and some cold bangles worth about Rs. 1,14,20,270. On September 14. 1966, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ggling. It is quite clear that identical issues arise in proceedings for imposition of penalty under s. 112(b) of the Sea Customs Act. 1962 and in a trial for an offence punishable under s. 135(b) of the same Act. If any. person acquires possession of or is in any way concerned in carrying, removing, depositing, harbouring. keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner ,dealing with any goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under s. 1 1 1, he may be proceeded against under S. 1 1 2 ( b) and also, under s. 135(b). On the same set of facts, a penalty may be imposed on the offender under s. II 2 (b) and he maybe punished with imprisonment and fine under S. 135(b). Similar issues arise in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ss. III and 112. The power of adjudicating penalty and confiscation under those sections is vested in them alone, The criminal court cannot make this adjudication. The, issue of the show-cause notice and proceedings thereunder are authorised by the Act and are not calculated to obstruct the course of justice in any court. We see no justifycation for holding that the proceedings amount to contempt of court. The decided cases do not support the appellant's contention. In Saibal Kumar Gupta v. B. K. Sen ([1961] 3S.C.R.460.), it was held that an enquiry by a special committee appointed by the Corporation of Calcutta to enquire in to the conduct of the Commissioner in the matter of appointment of municipal officers pending criminal proceeding....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion of Art. 20(3) of the Constitution. He says that unless the proceedings are stayed he will be compelled to enter the witness-box to rebut the evidence of John D'Sa and will be forced in cross-examination to give answers incriminating himself. Article 20(3) affirms that "no person, accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. first information report has been lodged and formal accusation has been made in it against the appellant charging him with offences in connection with the smuggling of gold. The appellant is, therefore a person accused of an offence. But it is not possible at this stage to say that he is compelled to be a witness against himself. There is no compulsion on him to enter the witness-box. H....