Back
High Court Of Delhi
BAL RAM - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil 1164 of 1979
Decided On : 02/20/1992
DEFENCE OF INDIA RULES - CONFISCATION OF GOLD - DEFENCE OF INDIA (AMENDMENT) RULES, 1962, RULE 126-L - CONFESSION - VOLUNTARINESS - RETRACTION - DEPARTMENTAL PROCEEDINGS - FINDINGS OF CRIMINAL COURT - RELEVANCE - INTERPRETATION OF RULE 126-L.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners were caught with a gold bar and Indian currency, which were seized under the Defence of India (Amendment) Rules, 1962. They were convicted in criminal proceedings, but the Additional Sessions Judge found Balram not guilty. The Collector of Central Excise and the Government of India upheld the confiscation of the gold bar and imposition of penalties on the petitioners in departmental proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the departmental authorities failed to consider the medical report showing injuries on Balram, the retraction of his confession, and the defence that he had brought the gold from Bhivani. The court found that the confession was not voluntary and that there was no basis for connecting the seizure of gold from Balram with Sant Lal.
Issues: 1. Whether the confession of Balram was voluntary. 2. Whether the departmental authorities were required to consider the findings of the criminal court. 3. Whether the retraction of confession was relevant in the departmental proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the medical report showing injuries on Balram, the retraction of his confession, and the defence that he had brought the gold from Bhivani were material circumstances that should have been considered by the departmental authorities. 2. The court held that the findings of the criminal court, though independent of the departmental proceedings, merited serious consideration by the departmental authorities. 3. The court held that the retraction of confession was relevant in the departmental proceedings as it cast doubt on the voluntariness of the confession.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions, quashed the impugned orders of confiscation and penalty, and directed the respondents to return the gold and refund the penalty to the petitioners.
( 1 ) THIS judgment will dispose of Civil Writs Nos. 1164 and 1142 of 1979 which are directed against the order of the Governmentof India whereby revision petitions filed by the petitioners against the order ofthe Collector of Customs and Central Excise were dismissed.
( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that on 13/03/1965 the Police andcentral Excise and Customs Officials, near the exit gate of Company Bagh opposite Delhi Main Railway Station, recoverd from Balram (petitioner) one Goldbar weighing 1698. 25 grams of over 14 carat purity. This Gold bar was seizedby the officials under Rule 126-L of the Defence of India (Amendment) Rules,1962. On a statement alleged to have been made by Balram the business premises of the other petitioner Sant Lal, were raided at Katra Sat Narain, Chandnichowk, Delhi. Indian currency of Rs. 14. 720. 00stated to be representing partsale proceeds of the seized Gold bar were recovered.
( 3 ) THE case was adjudicated upon, after show cause notice had beenissued, by the deputy Collector (Gold), New Delhi who vide his order dated 2 1/06/1971 ordered the confiscation of the said gold bar under the Defence ofindia (Amendment) Rules. Personal" penalty of Rs. 1,000. 00and Rs. 15,000. 00was imposed on Balram and Sant Lal respectively.
( 4 ) BOTH the persons filed appeals against the order of the deputy Collectorwhich were subsequently heard by the Collector of Central Excise and dismissedon 4/06/1976. This order of dismissal has be. en upheld in revision by thecentral Government.
( 5 ) THE two petitioners were also prosecuted under the Defence ofindia Rules, 1962. While Sant Lal was discharged by the Additional Chief Judicialmagistrate, New Delhi, the other petitioner viz. , Balram was vide order dated 2/07/1973 sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and waalso required to pay fine of Rs. 2. 000. 00 and in default to undergo six monthssfurther rigorous imprisonment. Balram filed on appeal against his convictionand the Assistant Collector of Central Excise also filed a revision petition pray ing for enhancement of the sentence.
( 6 ) BEFORE the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi it was, inter alia, contendedon behalf of Balram that the Customs and Excise authorities had extracted,forcibly, aconfession from him. In support of this contention reliance was alsoplaced on the report of a medical examination which was conducted afterbalram had been taken to Tihar Jail. The report indicated injuries on his personwhich showed that he had been given abeating. According to Balram the saidconfession was not voluntary and had been obtained under pressure. The caseof Balram was that he was a resident of Bhivani and after getting to know of ascheme by the Government of India who had floated Gold Bonds wherebyagainst Gold, Bonds could bepurchased he had obtained the bar of Gold fromhis grand-mother and come to Delhi to do the needful. According to Balram thegold Bonds were not available in Bhivani and that is why he brought the Goldto Delhi. In support of his contention Balram examined three witnesses, apartfrom the documentary evidence in the form of telegrams which were sent byhis brother soon after Balram s arrest.
( 7 ) VIDE judgment dated 20/04/1974 the Additional Sessions Judge,delhi allowed the appeal and found Balram not guilty.
( 8 ) THE said order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 20/04/1974was considered by the Collector of Central Excise in his appellate order dated 4/06/1976. Referring to this judgment it was observed that the criminalproceedings and the departmental adjudication were independent of each other. The Collector accepted that Balram had admitted that he had purchased Goldfrom Sant Lal and it is on this premise he proceeded to dispose of the appeal. The revisional authority also referred to the acquittal of Balram and observedthat the criminal proceedings were different from quasi-judicial proceedings andit did not necessarily follow that quasi-judicial proceedin
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
