9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 731X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revolver (make: Smith and Wesson) and a double barrel gun. He obtained a letter dated 24th December, 1984 from the High Commission of India at Singapore that arms could be imported into India under the Baggage Rules, if they were covered by a valid arm possession licence. 3. On the petitioner's return to India from Singapore, the revolver and the double barrel gun were detained under detention certificate dated 8th January, 1985. The double barrel gun was subsequently released to the petitioner on 30th July, 1985 and we are not concerned with the said release. However, the revolver was not released and it transpires that the same was sold on 18th August, 1986. As noticed above, the petitioner has prayed for restoration and restitution of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gun was released and why the revolver could not be released after the import and detention vide detention receipt dated 8th January, 1985. As noticed above, the double barrel gun was released on 30th July, 1985. 7. There is no correspondence by the petitioner from 8th January, 1985 till 19th December, 1990, when a letter was written by the petitioner to the Minister, Ministry of Finance, Department of Customs. This was followed by letter dated 28th November, 1991, which was written to the Collector of Customs, New Delhi. The petitioner had stated that delivery of the revolver was refused to him without any reason or show cause notice. No order was passed indicating as to why the petitioner's rightful possession was appropriated by the cust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ipt to the following effect:- "Pax had acquired a revolver on 4.4.79 which was sold on 14.12.84 as per Possession Dup. Licence No.202/P.S. Railway Road, Meerut. 10. This again indicates that the petitioner was aware and conscious of the problem as to reason why the revolver had not been released. The petitioner was informed vide letter dated 4th February, 1994, that they had looked into the records and the revolver in question was detained by the detention certificate as there was violation of the Baggage Rules. The petitioner had failed to furnish proof that the earlier revolver purchased by him was of Indian origin. The petitioner should have produced the same while seeking clearance of the gun or even subsequently. In these circumstanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
