Back
1989 Supreme(Del) 182
High Court Of Delhi
RAM SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil Writ 663 of 1981
Decided On : 04/19/1989
B.D.SHARMA, D.K.KAPUR, RAJENDER DUTT
The authority of the Assistant Collector to issue search warrants and the jurisdiction of the Deputy Collector to adjudicate or confiscate gold ornaments must be strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Gold Control Act, 1968, and relevant notifications.
Headnote:
GOLD CONTROL ACT - SEARCH WARRANT - AUTHORITY OF ASSISTANT COLLECTOR - CONFISCATION OF GOLD ORNAMENTS - JURISDICTION OF DEPUTY COLLECTOR - INTERPRETATION OF RELEVANT PROVISIONS - VALIDITY OF SEARCH, SEIZURE, CONFISCATION, AND PENALTY IMPOSED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the authority of the Assistant Collector (Preventive), Central Excise Collectorate, Chandigarh, to issue warrants for the search of his house and the competency of the Deputy Collector to order confiscation of ornaments or to impose a personal penalty. The petitioner's premises were searched, and gold ornaments were seized. The Deputy Collector issued a show-cause notice, and the petitioner replied, claiming that some of the ornaments belonged to others who had pawned them and that the rest were brought for repairs. The Deputy Collector confiscated the ornaments and imposed a penalty, which was upheld on appeal. The petitioner then filed a writ petition, arguing that the Assistant Collector had no authority to issue the search warrant and that the Deputy Collector lacked the jurisdiction to pass the adjudication order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Assistant Collector was not authorized to issue the search warrant and that the Deputy Collector lacked the jurisdiction to adjudicate or confiscate the gold ornaments because their value exceeded Rs. 25,000. The court also criticized the respondent department for failing to maintain proper records of relevant notifications and for not assisting the court in finding the appropriate notifications.
Issues: 1. Whether the Assistant Collector had the authority to issue the search warrant? 2. Whether the Deputy Collector had the jurisdiction to adjudicate or confiscate the gold ornaments?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 2(2), Section 4(2), and Section 58(2) of the Gold Control Act, 1968, and held that the Central Government can appoint any person to be a gold control officer for the purpose of carrying out searches, but not an officer below the rank of Superintendent of Central Excise. 2. The court interpreted the relevant notifications and held that the Assistant Collector was not specifically authorized by the Central Government in writing to effect the search or delegate his powers to the Inspector. 3. The court also interpreted the relevant notifications and held that the Deputy Collector had no jurisdiction to adjudicate or confiscate the gold ornaments because their value exceeded Rs. 25,000.
Final Decision: The court quashed the orders passed by the Assistant Collector and the Deputy Collector, directed the respondents to refund the redemption charges and personal penalty imposed on the petitioners, and quashed the criminal proceedings launched against the petitioner.
( 1 ) IN this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the authority of the Assistant Collector (Preventive ). Central Excise Collectorate, Chandigarh, to issue warrants for the search of the house of the petitioner, and the competency of the Deputy Collector to order confiscation of ornaments or to impose the personal penalty.
( 2 ) THE circumstances leading to the search of the premises of petitioner no. 2 and the consequent recovery of the gold ornaments are not in dispute, 0n 27th September, 1974, armed with the authority of the search warrant issued by the Assistant Collector (Preventive) Central Exese Collectorate, Chandigarh, Shri Kishan Singh Inspector, Customs and Excise conducted the search of the house of the petitioner in the presence of two witnesses. He prepared the Panchnama (Ex. P-1 ). On that very day, the statement of S. Ram Singh, petitioner no. 2 was recorded. On 18th February. 1975. the Debuty Collector of the Central Excise issued notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why the said 633 grams of gold ornaments be not confiscated u/s 71 of the Gold Control Act, 1968 and a penalty be imposed for the contravention of Section 6 (2), 16 (7) and 27 (7) (b) of the Gold Control Act. 1968. The petitioner sent t?is reply alleging therein that a total number of 26 items weighing 377. 400 groms out of the seized gold ornaments benloged to various persons who had pawned the same with the petitioner. These ornaments, even though ware pawned only 213 days prior to their seized but the entries could not be posted in ghirvi Register though the same existed in the daily cash book. The remaining ornaments had been delivered to the petitioner at his residence on the evening of 26th September, 1974 for minor repairs by one Darshan Singh and others of Patiala. All the gold items thus, are not liable to seizure. In support of the reply, the affidavits of the persons who had powned the jewellery items and the person who had come for repairs were attached.
( 3 ) THE learned Deputy Collector of Customs and Central Excise was not satisfied with the explanation and by order dated 3rd September, 1976, seized and confiscated the gold ornaments u/s 71 of the Gold Control Act. for the contraveation of Section 6 (2), 16 (7) and 27 (7) (b) of the Gold Control Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The petitioner, however, was given the option to redeem these ornaments on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 10,000. A personal penalty of Rs. 5000 was also imposed on the firm M/s. Ram Singh Manohar Singh Gold Jewellers u/s 74 of the Act.
( 4 ) AGGRIEVED from the order, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the Collector on 24th March, 1977. However, in the revision before the Central Government the petitioner only succeeded in the reduction of the amount of redemption from Rs. 10000 to Rs. 7500 and the penalty from Rs. 5000 to Rs. 3000. It was only thereafter that the petitioner discovered that the Assistant Collector had no authority to issue the search warrant and the Deputy Collector was not competent to pass the adjudication order.
( 5 ) THE respondents defence as disclosed in the counter is that in accordance with notification no S. O. No. 3118, the Central Government has empowered every Gold Control Officer of and above the rank of Superintendent of Central Excise, to enter and search or to authorise any officer of Government to enter and search any premises, vaults, lockers or any other places whether above or below ground. The Assistant Collector thus was fully empowered to issue the search warrant for the search of residential premises of the petitioner under Section 58 of the Gold Control Act. As regards the imposition of penalty or orders of confiscation by the Assistant Collector/deputy Collector the case set up is that u/s 78 of the Act, the Deputy Collector was empowered to confiscate the gold, the value of which does not exceed Rs. 1 lakh. On this aspect, reliance is placed on
