9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (11) TMI 236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... result of the search of luggage of the appellants on 24.1.68 while they were waiting on Platform No.5 of Bareilly Junction, one silver bar weighing 5.500 Kgs, one wrist watch (Hency Sandoz) 17 jewels, and one slip of paper with some accounts written on it were recovered from the luggage of the appellant Shri Madhav Saran. Likewise 45 slabs of foreign marked gold weighing 450 tolas of foreign markings and two basnis made of cotton cloth were recovered from the luggage of the appellant Shri Gopal Saran. The same were seized on a reasonable belief under the provisions of Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rule 126-H(2)(d) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 Part XII-A(Gold Control). After the usual investigation Show Cause Notice was iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant Shri Madhav Saran has filed his present appeal No.1834/81. Both the appellants also filed their separate appeals against the aforesaid Order-in-Original No.12/ Customs/76, dated 19.10.76 before the Gold Control Administrator challenging the penalty imposed upon them under the Defence of India Rules, 1962 read with Section 74 of the Gold Control Act, 1968, but without success. Against this common Order-in-Appeal, both the appellants have filed their present appeals No.8/80 and 10/80. 3. Since all the appeals in hand arise out of the same transaction they were heard together and are disposed of by this common Order. 4. We have heared S/Shri Gopal Prasad, Consultant and J.S. Agarwal and A.K. Rastogi, Advocates for the appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cuted in the Criminal Courts and were ultimately acquitted and therefore the impugned Order should be set aside, it would suffice to say that there is no legal impediment to record a contrary finding in the case after appreciating the evidence on record. In the case of Kannialal Versus C.B.E.C. (Writ Petition No.1928 of 1976) Madras High Court has clearly held that Quasi-judicial Authority can come to its own decision on the basis of records before it and there is no incongruity if the Court and Quasi-judicial Authority come to a different conclusion. Moreover, the record of the criminal proceedings cannot be looked into for the purpose of appreciating the evidence on record while dealing with these appeals. From the record we observe that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pal Saran appellant also admitted the recovery of the contraband gold. It is true that the appellant Shri Madhav Saran also denied any connection with the contraband gold and the other appellant Shri Gopal Saran also denied the ownership of the gold, but in his subsequent statement which was recorded on the same date, the appellant Shri Madhav Saran categorically admitted that out of the recovered 45 slabs of foreign marked gold, 17 slabs were purchased by him at Delhi and another 6 slabs were purchased by one Shri Kishan, S/o Shri Bhusan Saran at Delhi and all these 23 slabs were kept in the thaila of Shri Gopal Saran, appellant from where they were subsequently recovered. He further admitted that out of 45 slabs recovered as above, 17 sla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 45 gold slabs is enquired into and established. From the record we observe that neither the said Shri Kishan claimed the ownership of the contraband gold during the adjudication proceedings nor he was produced by either of the appellants as a defence witness or for the purpose of cross-examination by the Department. Under these circumstances, we agree with the findings of the authorities below that both the appellants were involved in the dealings in contraband gold and it was recovered from their conscious possession and control. 8. Shri J.S. Agarwal, Learned Advocate for Shri Gopal Saran heavily contended that under the Customs Act, the appellant Shri Gopal Saran was exonerated by the Central Board of Excise and Customs in appeal on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct shall be liable to penalty. Erstwhile Rule 126-H(2)(d) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 provides that no person other than a licensed dealer shall buy or otherwise acquire or agree to buy or otherwise acquire gold, not being ornament, except by succession, or in accordance with the permit granted by the authorities concerned. In the instant case, the fact that the contraband gold was of foreign origin and was rightly confiscated was not challenged before us. Thus after finding that the contraband gold was recovered from the conscious possession and control of both the appellants there is no legal impediment in finding the appellant Shri Gopal Saran guilty for contravening the provisions of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 read with Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
