9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of seizure of 18 sovereigns from business premises and residences. 2. Jurisdiction of notices served under Section 16(5) of Act XLV of 1968. 3. Interpretation of Section 16(5) (1) (b) regarding possession of gold articles and ornaments. 4. Construction of Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 16(5) in conjunction. 5. Jurisdictional validity of the notices served based on the possession of articles and ornaments. 6. Relief sought by the petitioners regarding the return of seized sovereigns. Detailed Analysis: 1. The petitions under Article 226 sought to restrain the respondent from taking any steps in pursuance of the seizure of 18 sovereigns from business premises and residences. The search conducted on the premises did not yield incriminating evidence, except for the recovery of 18 sovereigns from the wives of the partners. The petitioners claimed the seizure was illegal due to a defective warrant, but the court did not delve into this issue. 2. The notices served on the two ladies under Section 16(5) were challenged as being without jurisdiction since the ladies owned not only the 18 sovereigns but also other gold ornaments. As per Section 16(5) (1) (b), a family was entitled to own and possess gold articles and ornaments not exceeding 4,000 grams, rendering the notices jurisdictionally invalid. 3. The supplemental affidavit confirmed that the two ladies possessed ornaments not exceeding 4,000 grams, a fact not contested by the respondent. The court noted the lack of effort during the search to ascertain the presence of other ornaments, which could have exempted the family from making a declaration under Section 16(5). 4. The respondent argued for a harmonious interpretation of Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 16(5), suggesting that the limit specified in Clause (a) should apply to Clause (b) as well. However, the court rejected this interpretation, emphasizing that Clause (b) referred to articles and ornaments owned or possessed by an individual or family, without importing the limit from Clause (a). 5. Given that the ladies did not exceed the permissible limit of 4,000 grams in possession of articles and ornaments, the notices served were deemed to be without jurisdiction. The court allowed the petitions with costs and directed the return of the 18 seized sovereigns to the respective ladies within a month. This judgment highlights the importance of statutory interpretation in determining jurisdictional validity and upholding the rights of individuals in possession of gold articles and ornaments within the prescribed limits under the law.
|
