SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1969 Supreme(Del) 36

O.M.PRAKASH
ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS – Appellant
Versus
TILAK RAJ – Respondent


Om Parkash, J.

( 1 ) THE facts, out of which this revision petition against an order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, has arisen are as follows :-

THE Customs Preventive Staff, New Delhi, had, on the 29th August, 1968 intercepted a car No. MHJ-1116, near Jamuna Bridge. Bal Kishan Khanna and other persons were travelling in that car. On the personal search of Bal Kishan Khanna, 13 bars of gold weighing 130 tolas with foreign markings were recovered. The Customs Preventive Staff believed that the 13 bars of gold had been imported into India without a permit as required under law and were liable to be confiscated and that the car was also liable to be confiscated. The Customs Preventive Staff, had therefore, taken the 13 bars of gold and the car into possession.

( 2 ) ON the 4th September, 1968, Tilak Raj respondent, brother of Bal Kishan Khanna, made an application, in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, praying that the car seized may be returned to him. The application was opposed on behalf of the Customs Preventive Department. It was pleaded that as the car was liable to be confiscated under section 115 (2) of the Customs Act, only Customs Officers had jurisdiction














Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top