9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of the statement recorded from the petitioner. 2. Ownership of the seized gold ornaments. 3. Confiscation and penalty imposed under the Gold Control Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. The first issue pertains to the validity of the statement recorded from the petitioner on 29-11-1972 by the Customs Officials and its admissibility against him. The court examined the provisions of Section 70 and Section 63 of the Gold (Control) Act, which authorize the recording of statements by concerned officers. It was clarified that these statements are not akin to confessions recorded by a Magistrate under Section 164 Cr. P.C. and are admissible if voluntary and true. The court emphasized that statements must be scrutinized for any threats or inducements. In this case, the petitioner's statement was recorded by Customs Officers and not police officials, making it admissible. The court analyzed the circumstances and evidence to determine the truthfulness of the statement, ultimately finding discrepancies that raised doubts about its veracity. 2. The second issue revolves around the ownership of the seized gold ornaments. The petitioner claimed that the ornaments belonged to other individuals, namely Smt. Premratanki Bai, Dr. Deo Dutt, and Bhanwar Lal Diwakar, as he received them for manufacturing afresh. The court examined the entries in the petitioner's register, GR 13, which indicated the presence of these ornaments and were certified by an Inspector of the Customs and Excise Department. Despite delays in processing, the court found no grounds to disbelieve the entries. The court noted that the ornaments were not owned by the petitioner, leading to the conclusion that they could not be confiscated under Section 71 of the Act. The court also criticized the authorities for not producing the seized register as evidence, leading to an adverse inference against them. 3. The final issue concerns the confiscation and penalty imposed under the Gold Control Act. The court found that the penalty imposed on the petitioner was unjustified as he had not contravened any provisions of the Act, given the proper entries made in the register. The court highlighted the lack of evidence supporting the confiscation and penalty, especially considering the ownership of the ornaments and the entries in the register. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the orders of confiscation and penalty, and declared the confiscation of the gold ornaments as wholly illegal, entitling the petitioner to the return of the seized items. In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing the importance of scrutinizing statements, verifying ownership of seized items, and ensuring the legality of confiscation and penalties under the Gold Control Act.
|
