TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (5) TMI 36
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ghing 10 tolas valued at Rs. 2,16,400/-, 21 pieces of silver weighing 18.990 Kgs. approximately and 150 wrist watches of foreign make valued at Rs. 36.740/- from the almirah of the drawing room of the petitioner. The seized goods were handed over to Customs by the police on December 20, 1980. The Customs Officers recorded the statements of the petitioner, his father Mangal Singh and his sister-in-law Smt. Jaswant Kaur under Section 108 of the Act. Smt. Jaswant Kaur stated that the seized gold, silver and the wrist watches were kept by said Ramesh Kumar, a friend of the petitioner, Dalip Singh, in a gathri (package) in the evening of December 13, 1980 and at that time Dalip Singh was not present in the house and that she had allowed Ra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under the Gold (Control) Act and that in case it became available it would stand absolutely confiscated under Section 112 of the Act. The Collector also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on the petitioner under the Gold (Control) Act. The petitioner preferred two separate appeals against the said two orders, both dated July 2, 1983 to the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. It was urged before the Tribunal that the contraband goods were kept by Ramesh Kumar, they had also been seized on the pointing out of Ramesh Kumar that the petitioner had nothing to do with the goods and that his exclusive and conscious possession of the goods was not established. On these averments it was contended that the two orders of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....leged incident being FIR No. 352, dated 14th December, 1980 under Section 308 S. Act, 25 Arms Act, 9.1.78 Opium Act, 61.1.14 Excise Act by Police Station 'A' Division Amritsar. In view of the fact that FIR had been registered, the investigation/enquiry made by the Customs Authorities are hit under Section 25 of the Evidence Act and Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. If these statements are excluded, there is absolutely no material to connect the petitioner with the alleged incident. II. That on admitted facts the seizure was made by the police and not under the provisions of the Customs Act. The provisions of Section 123 of the Customs Act would not apply and the Department has failed to prove t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t by Police Station 'A' Division Amritsar. In view of the fact that FIR had been registered, the investigation/enquiry made by the Customs Authorities are hit under Section 25 of the Evidence Act and Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. If these statements are excluded, there is absolutely no material to connect the petitioner with the alleged incident. II. That on admitted facts, the seizure was made by police and not under the Gold (Control) Act, and no presumption can be drawn under Section 99 of the Gold (Control) Act. Department having failed to prove that it was a primary gold, the petitioner has denied his connection with the alleged gold. III. Whether on the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the two petitions. As regards question No. 1 in the two petitions, it was submitted that an FIR, being FIR No. 352, dated December 14, 1980, had been registered in this case under Section 308 S. Act, under Section 25 of the Arms Act, under the Opium Act and Section 61 of the Excise Act by the police. That being so, the investigation or the enquiry held by the customs authorities was hit by the provisions of Section 25 of the Evidence Act and Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and further that if these statements are excluded there is no material to connect the petitioner with the alleged incident. These submissions were admittedly not made on behalf of the petitioner in either of the two appeals before the Tribunal and the Tribunal....