The mere finding of fact recorded by the Collector of Customs about the smuggled gold being recovered from the person of the appellant was not sufficient to conclude that the appellant was 'concerned' in the illegal importation of the smuggled gold into the country and therefore liable for penalty under section 167(8) of the Act.

JUDGMENT :

S.M. Sikri, J.

1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court at Delhi dismissing in limine the writ petition under arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution filed by the appellant, Kartar Singh. In this petition h, had prayed inter alia for a writ of certiorari quashing the orders of the Union of India, respondent No. 1, and the Central Board of Revenue, respondent No. 2, dated June 2. 1963, and November 27, 1961, respectively.

2. These orders came to be passed in the following circumstances. One Mukand Singh came to stay with the appellant, on November 22, 1957, in his house at 11, Samru Place, New Delhi. On November 28, 1957, a consignment of foreign air mail articles (magazines) was received from Bangkok in the Air Sorting Office, Safdarjang Airport. Out of this consignment certain articles addressed to Mukand Singh, c/o Kartar Singh, quarter No It, Samru Place, were detained on suspicion by the Customs Authorities and forwarded to the Foreign Post Office fur examination. On November 29, 1957, each of these magazines were found to contain a gold bar clipped on some of the pages. The appellant's premises were searched and some documents and a sum of Rs. 2700/- in Indian Currency notes were recovered. Mukand Singh was arrested and he admitted the offences and revealed that he expected to receive more gold in 58 such air mail articles (magazines). The appellant was examined by the Inspector of Customs on November 29, 1957, and he made a statement as follows :-

"Shri Mukand Singh is the son-in-law of S. Kartar Singh who is a friend of mine and is residing in Bangkok for the last 25 years. He is not related to me in any way. I had met S. Mukand Singh previously on one occassion in a marriage party and this is the fir. time that Shri Mukand Singh is staying with me. I was never in correspondence with S. Mukand Singh......I did not ask why he was receiving such a large No. of magazines nor he disclosed the contents to me.'On December 2, 1957, more air mail articles were received in the Foreign Post Office. 49 such articles were addressed to Mukand Singh and 9 were addressed to Kartar Singb, the appellant, at 11, Samru Place, New Delhi. These 9 parcels on opening, were found to contain i5 gold guineas. On July 18 1958, the appellant was called upon to explain "as to why the gold guineas recovered from the 9 parcels addressed to him should not be confiscated and further penalty imposed on him under section 167 (8) of Sea Customs Act for the contravention of the restrictions imposed under section 8(1) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, read with section 19 of the Sea Customs Act.

3. By his order dated November 28, 1959, the Collector gave the appellant the benefit of doubt and dropped the charges against him. He observed :

".........in view of the scanty evidence on record to prove Kartar Singh's (Petitioner's) knowledge regarding the contents of the parcels it is difficult to hold him guilty. Moreover, there is documentary evidence on record that parcels were also meant for Mukand Singh who was staying with Kartar Singh (Petitioner) temporarily........"

4. On May 11, 1981, the Central Beard of Kevenue called upon the appellant to chow cause why the above mentioned order of the Collector be not revised by the Board under section 190A. Sea Customs Act, 1878, and a suitable penalty imposed or him under section 167(8), Sea Customs Act. In this show cause notice it was alleged by the Board that the appellant had himself received nine packets containing 75 gold guineas.

5. The appellant replied to this notice stating that he had never received 9 packets containg 75 gold guineas, and further that he had no knowledge about these packets. H- requested for the supply of copies of the evidence on the basis of which the allegations had been made. The Board, by its letter dated July 29, 1961, asked the Appellant to specify the documents which he required, but on October 16,