TMI Blog1959 (4) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counts maintained by this firm showed that it had received gold from the four petitioners in these cases in the past and that the receipts of such gold were not accounted for in the regular account books. On 10-11-1957, Bijraj, son of Venechand Bhatwada who was managing the business stated that the several gold bars bearing foreign marks and weighing 70 tolas which had been seized from the shop as well as from the residence were received from the petitioner in W. P. No. 110 of 1959. He also made a statement relating to the transactions of the firm with the petitioners in W. P. Nos. 109, 88 and 111 of 1959. He added that the gold was smuggled gold. On 30-11-1957, he gave a further statement in which he admitted that the smuggled gold have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome matrimonial proposals. (4) The Collector of Central Excise, Madras, gave a personal hearing to the counsel of the petitioners and finally recorded this view: As regards the four Bangalore parties I consider that these four parties at Bangalore were the persons concerned in the smuggling of gold which they had been passing on to the firm at Vellore. In this view he imposed a penalty of ₹ 6000 on the petitioners in W. P. No. 88 of 1959, of ₹ 25000 on the petitioner in W. P. No. 109 of 1959, of ₹ 25000 on the petitioner in W. P. No. 110 of 1959 and of ₹ 12000 on the petitioner in W. P. No. 111 of 1959. These individuals have, therefore, come to this court for the issue of an appropriate writ to quash the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en completed. To be in possession of the gold, or to sell the gold, or to buy the gold, once the process of importation assuming the importation is unlawful--is completed and independently of the series of acts connected with such importation will not fall within the terms of item 8 of the schedule. (7) In this connection reference may be made to the decision of Rajagopal Aiyangar J. in W. P. No. 425 of 1956. That was a case where a person was proceeded against departmentally for having purchased gold which it was believed, had been smuggled into the country. The Collector of Customs dealt with him under Sec. 167, item No. 8. He then came to this court for the issue of an appropriate writ and the petition was allowed. In dealing with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cified in the first column of Sec. 167(8). Even if a person purchases gold with the full knowledge that that gold has been smuggled into the country, that by itself will not constitute him a person concerned in the antecedent and completed act of smuggling. It was only on proof that the petitioner was concerned in one or the other of the offence set out in the first column of S. 167(8) that the petitioner would have been liable to suffer the penalty prescribed in column 3 of S. 167(8). This view was re-affirmed in the judgment delivered a few days later in W. P. No. 247 of 1957. (9) To show that the petitioners in these cases imported the gold in question or were concerned in its import, there is really no legal evidence whatsoever. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Evidence Act. It must also be borne in mind that mere possession of gold which has been unlawfully imported into India cannot be dealt with under item 8 of the Schedule to Section 167. Learned counsel for the department next referred to the decision in Bhatnagars and Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, (S) , and contended that before this court can interfere it must be satisfied that there is no evidence whatsoever on the basis of which the Collector of Central Excise could have come to the conclusion he did. Now, as I have tried to explain there is no legal evidence whatever to support the conclusion of the Collector of Central Excise that the petitioners either imported the gold or were concerned in its import. The various circumstanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
