TMI Blog1965 (1) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntral Board of Revenue and Sec. 131, where under a revision lies to the Central Government, and has invoked the special jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution without exhausting those statutory remedies. Such being the case, we would have had no hesitation in dismissing this writ petition on that ground alone, but for the fact that the adjudication by the Collector of Central Excise is vitiated by a flagrant disregard, albeit in absolute good faith, of the essential requirements of natural justice, which in essence is only fair play in action , is some thing which is basic to our legal system, and the importance of upholding it far outweighs the significance of any particular case. Natural justice, is the name given to certain fundamental rules which are considered so necessary to the proper exercise of power that they are projected from the judicial to the administrative sphere. This is because experience has shown that there is much truth in the aphorism of Lord Action that power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely . (3) In view of the order we propose to make in this case, it would suffice if we set out the allegations against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aff. Besides the driver, there were two persons inside the car and they were Devichand, the petitioner in this writ petition and one Mangilal. On being questioned as to where they were going. the occupations stated that they were on their way to Vijayawada, but due to the mistake of the driver, they were on a wrong track. The Central excise officers then took the car and the occupants to Ongole and there the was recorded. There in he said inter alia, that he had left Madras on the night of 26-4-1963 on a trip of Vijayawada, had met Mangilal accidentally at Nellore on the morning of the 27th and had agreed to go with him in the car to Vijayawada and that on the 28th, the car had been intercepted by the exercise staff bear Eathamukkala. He protested his innocence. Mangilal said that he was in a hurry to go to Madras as he had to take an injured man by name Balwant for treatment. So Mangilal was allowed to go, on his promise to come back to give a statement after two days. He returned accordingly and gave a statement on 2-5-1963 in which he stated that he had left Madras in the taxi MSY 2792 on the evening of 26-4-1963, had picked up Devichand at Nellore, on the morning of 27-4-196 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to passing on the information to the Customs Authorities. (9) It would appear that Ramalinga Reddy was questioned on 19-5-1963 and a statement was recorded from him also, in which he denied his complicity in the smuggling operations and tried to explain away a telegram which had been received by him from one Vadivelu Nadar on 26-4-1963 saying that the latter would be meeting him on the next day, by stating that the telegram had been sent to him as he was an influential person in Eathamukkala area. He further stated that he was away from Ongole for about them days during the period when the goods were smuggled and landed. (10) On the basis of the above material, action was taken against the smugglers by the collector of Central Excise. Hyderabad who is the Collector of customs for the area. So far as the petitioner was concerned on 22-5-1963 a show-cause notice was issued in the following terms : Central Excise Collectorate, Hyderabad . C. No. VIII/ 10/ 11/ 63 dated 22nd May 1963. Show cause Notice. To, Shri Devichand, son of Theraji, No. 9 , Narayanamudali Street, Madras - 1. Whereas there is reason to believe that you have contravened S. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be imposed. He added : A personal hearing in the absence of such material being provided to me, will not afford me a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. I therefore request you that copies of the material referred to above may be furnished to me and a personal hearing be given to me after such material has been furnished to me. To this, the Collector sent a telegram followed by a letter on 7-6-1963 declining to adjourn the case for ten days but fixing the date of hearing as 10-6-1963. The personal hearing was conducted on 10-6-1963 at which the petitioner represented that he was not connected with the smuggling operations in any way. When he was examined by the Collector in detail about his knowledge of the persons and events in this case and also about his movements in his trip to Ongole, the petitioner admitted that Mangilal was his employee on a monthly pay of ₹ 50/- but he did not suspect or question Mangilal as to how the latter could afford to engage a taxi for a purposeless journey to Vijayawada. On being asked about the address of his relative at Vijayawada, whom he intended to visit in his trip, the petitioner stated that he did not kno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case against him : As already discussed in regard to Mangilal, Shri Devichand pre-planned to accompany Mangilal, Shri Devichand pre-planned to accompany Mangilal in his journey from Madras and met him at a hotel in Nellore on the journey. In fact a car was engaged by Mangilal to take Devichand with him. Their subsequent movements and halts right on the heels of the smugglers' party, association with Balwant belonging to the smugglers' party and final trip towards the sea-shore to which the smugglers' party proceeded on the previous night and did not return, abundantly prove their connection with the smuggling under way and their knowledge of the whole affair. Besides this, his denial about Balwant whom Mangilal is reported to have picked when he was moving with Devichand clearly shows how he is trying to avoid all evidence of his activities. The offence of abetment of smuggling is thus proved in his case also. It is in this view that the Collector imposed a penalty of ₹ 50,000/- on the petitioner. (13) The order of the collector was challenged in this writ petition on the following grounds : (1) that the requirements of S. 124 of the Act had not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the petitioner was stated to one. Even the statement of Mangilal, who was in the company of the petitioner in the car MSV 2792 at the time it was intercepted by the excise staff in the vicinity of Eathamukkala was not supplied to the petitioner . Nor was a copy of the 'Panchnama' given to him. At the personal inquiry, the petitioner was questioned about his movements and he said he was on his was to Vijayawada on a private visit and denied that he had any part or lot in the smuggling. (16) It is evident that the form of abetment alleged against the petitioner was abetment by conspiracy as contemplated by S. 107 of the Indian Penal Code. That section so far as in material, provides : A person abets the doing of a thing who : Secondly : - Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy and in order to the doing of that things : That being the nature of the accusation against the petitioner , and as under the law one conspirator would be liable for the acts of a co-conspirator , it was necessary for him to know what the other conspirators ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or of police in the Royal Federation of Malaya Police, was dismissed by the commissioner of Police on the ground that he had been guilty of an offence against disciple. Inspector Kanda brought an action in the High Court challenging the dismissal. The trial Judge Rigby J declared that the dismissal was void and had no effect. The Government appealed. The Court of Appeal , by a majority allowed the appeal and held that inspector Kanda was validity dismissed. He appealed to the Privy Council. One of the questions which the appeal raised was whether the proceedings which resulted in Kanda's dismissal were conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The stand taken by inspector Kanda was that his dismissal was invalid because he was not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard, in accordance with the provisions of Article 135(2) of the Constitution in that the report of the board of inquiry, which was prejudicial to him was before the adjucating officer but unknown to Kanda, who never had any knowledge of the contents of the report and with which he had no chance to deal. (18) Considering this point of the alleged denial of a reasonable opportunity of b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt was devoted to showing that the adjudicating officer was not biased against inspector Kanda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . The trail Judge Rigby J., was not persuaded by these arguments. He held that there was a very real likelihood of bias. But all the members of the Court of Appeal thought otherwise. They held that there was no real likelihood of bias. so inspector Kanda failed on that way of looking at the case. In the opinion of their Lordships, however, the proper approach is somewhat different. The rule against bias is one thing. The right to be heard is another. Those two rules are the essential characteristics of what is often called natural justice. They are the twin pillars supporting it. The Romans put them in the two maxims: Nemo judex in causa sua : and Audit alteram partem. They have recently been put in the two words, Impartiality and Fairness. But they are separate concepts and are governed by separate considerations. In the present case inspector Kanda complained of a breach of the second. He said that his constitutional right had been infringed. he had been dismissed without being given a reaso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
