TMI Blog1999 (4) TMI 580X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said notice, the appellant by letter dated December 26, 1997, stated that all the papers and documents along with some valuable articles relating to his income, bank account, etc., were taken away by the police and that he is not able to produce any documents. The Competent Authority did not believe the version of the appellant that the documents were taken away from him by the police without issuing any panchnama or a receipt and he, therefore, issued another notice dated November 24, 1997, giving an opportunity to the appellant to be heard. The matter was postponed till after the Ramzan and the hearing was fixed on February 17, 1998, when the authorised representative of the appellant appeared and expressed his inability to furnish the evidence/ documents regarding acquisition of assets by the appellant. The Competent Authority perused the income-tax assessment records of the appellant and other records and after considering the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, came to the conclusion that the properties mentioned in the annexure are nothing but illegally acquired properties covered under section 68B(g) of the Act and he passed the impugned order. S/Shri R. N. Chakra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the provisions of Chapter VA. The fact that by the words who has been convicted , the past tense has been used in clause (a) in describing the conviction of a person for offence punishable under the Act, is an indication to show that Parliament intended that persons who have already been convicted before the insertion of Chapter VA by Act 2 of 1989 are to fall within the mischief of clause (a). Otherwise, there was no need to use the words who has been convicted in clause (a) and Parliament could have used the words is convicted . It is a cardinal principle in interpretation of statutes, that every word in a statute has to be given a meaning and the presumption is that the Legislature does not use words unnecessarily. A construction which would leave without effect any part of the language of a statute will normally be rejected. By a reading of the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 68C, it is clear that Parliament has taken care to limit the operation of Chapter VA wherever it was found necessary. Section 68C is in the following terms : 68C. Prohibition of holding illegally acquired property. (1) As from the commencement of this Chapter, it shall not be lawful fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able with death under section 9 of the Amendment Act. Another provision which was inserted by way of amendment was, under section 19 of the Amendment Act, the Chapter VA in the main Act, meant to serve as deterrent as well as to take away illegally acquired properties from the persons covered by the Act. Having this intendment of the Legislature in view, the scope of clause (a) of section 68A(2) needs to be interpreted. It is well-settled that a construction which would leave without effect any part of the language of a statute, will normally be rejected. Applying the said principle, it is not possible to leave without effect the use of the words has been convicted in clause (a). It is useful to refer to Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, page 40, in which the much celebrated Heydon s case [1584] 3 Co. Rep. 7a was referred to : In Heydon s case [1584] 3 Co. Rep 7a, it was resolved by the Barons of the Exchequer (at page 7b) that for the sure and true interpretation of all statutes in general (be they penal or beneficial, restrictive or enlarging of the common law) four things are to be discerned and considered : (1) What was the common law before the making of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the introduction of Chapter VA, as well as to persons who commit offences under the Act, subsequent to the amendment and hence, sub-section (2) of section 68A is both retrospective as well as prospective in operation. We, therefore, reject the contention of the appellants in this regard and hold that the appellants are covered by Chapter VA. Learned counsel for the appellant, placing reliance on Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh, AIR 1990 SC 209, argued that only procedural law can be retrospective. We do not find any force in this contention as both procedural and substantive laws can be enacted with retrospective operation. The next submission made by learned counsel for the appellants is that the competent authority is not mentioned by name in the notifica tion dated July 24, 1997, and hence Shri Bandyopadhyay who has passed the impugned order had no jurisdiction. This submission also has no substance, as whosoever is appointed as the competent authority has the jurisdiction to function in accordance with the notification under section 68D, which does not require that a person by name should be appointed as a competent authority. Any Collector of Customs or Collector of Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
