Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

1997 (5) TMI 65

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he following day i.e. 4th May, 1970, the Inspector, Central Excise, Bhiwani took into possession the above said gold sovereigns which were subsequently seized under Section 66 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 (hereinafter called `the Act'). Jagat Singh and Sobha Rani then gave statements to the authorities that the gold was to be delivered to the petitioner, on which the house and shop of the petitioner were also searched, but nothing incriminating was found. The petitioner was, however, arrested and a confessional statement taken from him under coercion, on which the petitioner filed a complaint under Sections 330/323 of the Indian Penal Code against Ram Chander S.H.O. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani, in his order dated 17-11-1980 he....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ay was also enclosed. These petitions were duly received in the department on 5th October, 1978 and were disposed off by Shri J. Dutta, Addl. Secretary to Government of India in the Ministry of Finance vide orders enclosed as Annexure P-8 and P-9. The officer accepted the revision petition against the order Annexure P-3 vide order dated 4-6-1981 Annexure P-8 holding that the statement of the petitioner made on 5th May, 1970 had been taken from him under coercion and could not be relied upon, whereas the revision petition against the order Annexure P-5 was rejected vide an order Annexure P-9 of even date holding that the said petition was time barred as having been filed beyond six months and that no ground for the condonation of delay had b....